Is it only me or is the same old joke-esolang thing getting boring? They all read exactly the same, just with the keywords replaced by some other random string.

No, this doesn’t read like tabloid headlines. It uses similar words, but nobody would mistake it for tabloid headlines. Same as the other esolang doesn’t read like Shakespeare.

Maybe I am also just getting old and thus I’ve heard this joke too many times.

Reminds me of that old story of the email server that couldn’t send emails farther than 500 miles: https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail.html

Snap a picture of the surroundings on the laptop webcam and upload it to the geoguessr subreddit.

In my last job we called that “optimizing”, after a colleague (who usually only did frontent work) used the opportunity when everyone else was on vacation to implement a few show-stopping bugs in the backend and put “optimized backend code” in the commit message. He did the same thing a few months later during the next vacation period, which really solidified the joke.

It’s the cheap additives used to cut the stuff that do the trick.

And if that’s not enough, try military strength edibles.

That’s why the US is in dire need of a new constitution: bad decisions from over 200 years ago still shape the way politics is done right up until today.

Always great when people see problems that are so old they are literally mentioned in the old testament and think that it’s a new thing that only emerged yesterday.

And even if you ignore the old testament, half of the gospels is Jesus fighting the Pharisees, which are exactly that.

FPTP is just an ancient, outdated system that really sucks. Unmitigated FPTP is mostly employed by countries that have been “alive” for too long without a major crisis that caused a new constitution to be passed. (And not only some measly amendments, but full re-writes).

I think the point was that to change the system away from a 2-party-system, the people who got into power via this system would have to agree to change to a different system which would likely lead to them not being in power.

Politicians are directly disincentivized from changing to a better system. The only direction they are incentivized to change the system to would be a 1-party-system with them in power.

That’s why a change to a better, more fair, more liberal electoral system only ever happens when a country is re-founded, e.g. after a lost war or after a revolution.

Btw: If you ignore the 10 amendments to the US constitution that were ratified in the first year (which were basically zero-day patches) and the two amendments that don’t have an effect (prohibition and cancellation of the prohibition) you end up with 15 amendments.

France had 15 full constitutional rewrites over about the same time period.

Because the US has a constitutionally enshrined two-party system.

The constitution doesn’t mention the two-party system by name, but it defines an election system that can do nothing but create a two-party system.

That’s because it’s first-to-the-post: The winner takes it all, the loser gets nothing.

Take for example a situation where there are three parties. One is far left, one is center left, one is right. If 25% vote for far left, 35% vote for center left and 40% vote for right, it’s clear that the majority would favour a left candidate, but the right one will win.

This means, splitting the vote is a lost vote for your compromise candidate (e.g. a far left voter would prefer a center left one over a right one), so people vote for one of the major parties, which doesn’t allow third parties to ever emerge. Most people would just not risk voting for another candidate who has less chance to win.

A run-off system would drop out the least favoured candidates, giving people a choice to vote for a compromise candidate. This would allow people to be more risk-friendly with their first vote, which could allow a third-party candidate to actually make it into the run-off round.

A coalition-based system allows multiple parties to be in government at once. That would allow e.g. the far left and the left parties to form a coalition, which allows for finer compromises.

Why would this not be a meme? Because it doesn’t use one of the lazy default templates or the default font?

Stick the same text in impact font over an aerial photo of seaworld and even you would accept it as a meme.

This is just as much of a meme as any other one.