this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
1315 points (94.7% liked)
Political Memes
5413 readers
2927 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We need to become a one party state.
Edit: you want to give representation to people who would deny you representation if given the opportunity. How can you not see how stupid that is?
I checked this person's comments to see if there was any interpretation that wasn't an extremely creepy and authoritarian.
The most recent few are not promising.
Why? I commented something you didn't like for some reason so I must be a "creepy authoritarian?" What is the person I responded to advocating for if not a one party state. There are two major political parties in the US, that person wants the Republican party to be reduced to a "smoking crater." Two parties minus one party equals one party. That's about as simple as arithmetic gets.
Yeah, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of how things function. Did we end up with one party when the Whigs party went away? No. We had the Republican party become the other major player.
We need more than two parties, not fewer. We just need those parties to ideally be further left, where the majority of Americans are. One party systems you end up without any dissenting voice to speak up when something wrong is being done, so they are allowed to do whatever they want and end up dominating the people. A better system of voting allows voting based on what people actually want, not strategy, so there are a larger variety of voices more closely representing the people.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand how things function. If the Republican party is destroyed, Republican voters will fracture into multiple parties, dividing conservative voters and making it impossible for any one of the new parties to compete with the Democrats in our winner-take-all, first-past-the-post electoral system. The federal government would become a defacto single party system, with the Democrats being that party. Conservatives likely would coalesce around a new single party and join efforts to try and take on the Democrats, but that party would exist to do nothing but obstruct, like the Republican party today. So we would once again be in a situation where there is one party trying to represent a plurality of Americans and an opposition party trying to obstruct everything that party wants to do.
If we want a system of plurality and proportional representation, it would require changing not only the US constitution, but 50 state constitutions as well. How do you propose accomplishing that with two parties competing for control, when one of those parties wants only to obstruct?
Sure, over a short enough time frame, that's true. However, the power vaccum would quickly be filled by another party, and thus most people wouldn't consider the US to have a single-party system. It's the same way how you don't breathe in the time between every exhale and inhale, but people don't consider you to have "stopped breathing" because that's not a very useful conceptualization.
Which I acknowledged. Or did you stop reading after "defacto single party system?"
No, it's just that I didn't notice the part where you admitted you were wrong, so I felt the need to explain why you weren't correct.
Oh is that what you think you did? Interesting.
There's something simple here all right, but it's not the math.
By all means, enlighten me. What am I missing?
Getting rid of one party in a First Past The Post system would result in another party taking its place. Barring any mention of reforming how elections are held in America, it is not reasonable to assume someone advocating for dissolving one party wants the remaining party to be the only party.
Exactly. Get rid of the Republicans and another obstructionist party would eventually take their place, putting us right back where we are right now. You want to replace the first-past-the-post electoral system with one of proportional representation and political plurality? Fine, but how do you plan on accomplishing that with the Republicans, or some other obstructionist fighting you at every turn?
look buddy, you asked for an explanation, there it is
Here's an example for you: in my country, we don't have a republican party. We barely have a pure conservative party any more. But what we do have are 3 or more (depending on your riding) parties that you can vote for and not feel like you're wasting your ballot.
And there are sometimes even some good choices in there, because politicians are actually competing over sane policy rather than existential issues like whether we should or should not eradicate trans people. Which is just trying to legalize hate; it's not how a functioning democracy should be operating.
Oh yeah, this shit like this comment here is why the working class must never disarm.
SocialistRA.org