this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
1316 points (94.7% liked)

Political Memes

5494 readers
2005 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes 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 misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow 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
[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Voters are a part of that system. Who decides who comes into power? The voters. If literally nobody votes for democrats or republicans neither could come into power. The people have kept the system in place as much as the two parties.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

If literally nobody votes for democrats or republicans neither could come into power.

C'mon guys, let's do this. I believe in us.

[–] Chr0nos1@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Though I agree with you, no one will vote third party, because they are convinced a third party can't win, making it a self fulfilling prophecy. If you don't vote for them, of course they can't win. While I acknowledge that the system is broken here in the US, and that ranked voting is a much better system, I'd like to remind people that its still important to vote for who you like, and not against who you don't like. I don't like either of the main candidates for President, so I'm voting third party. Will my person win? Who knows, probably not, but I won't vote for either of the main candidates because I dislike them both for different reasons, and think they're both awful. Is one worse than the other? Yep, sure is, but I'd still rather vote for someone I like. If people weren't so obsessed with only voting for the major parties, third party candidates could win. It's happened in the past. No one ran for president as a Republican until 1856, and they didn't get their first Republican president until Lincoln in 1860, which means that even though they are a major party now, they were a third party back then. Third parties CAN win, but not with the current mindset of the average American voter today. If people who say they want a change, actually want a change, then they need to do something different to get the change. If you keep doing the same thing, nothing will change. If you're sick of the major parties, and hate the candidates they're putting forth, show them how bad they are by voting third party. Change is hard, but possible. To see change, you need to be change.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

And who convinced them?

The Democrats and Republicans. Because they want to keep the power between themselves.

That doesn't change the fact that one candidate is clearly worse than the other.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We've done it before. You don't see the Whig party on the ballot anymore. It may be a two-party system, but that doesn't mean a party or both can't be replaced from time to time.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We just need to have a civil war to do it.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not really. The Whig party collapsed in the mid 1850s and the Civil War was in the 60s. People just need to vote for who they truly want, even if it's a third party.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

What if I don't want anyone to be president?

[–] hark@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

If your choices are limited to the two party duopoly then you don't really have a choice. Technically you can vote for another party, but that's just throwing your vote away. If you don't vote then there are millions of others who vote anyway (voting with your wallet when buying products doesn't work for similar reasons).

The people had the system forced on them and are extremely limited in what they can do in it. Let's say by some miracle that another party emerges victorious, that'll just become the new target for ~~bribery~~ lobbyists who will bend the party to their will anyway.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If your choices are limited to the two party duopoly then you don’t really have a choice

It’s just slower than you want. If you consistently vote for “one side”, every election, the center will move toward that side as the candidates differentiate themselves (but not too much). Isn’t this the entire problem? Too many people have been voting Conservative for too many years, digging themselves a hole that will take a similar number of years to dig out of?

Currently the “middle” is way to the right. Are you voting to move that middle line yet farther right or are you voting to start moving it back toward the left?

[–] hark@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I've voted for the democratic party straight down the ballot every election for as long as I can vote. A major part of the problem is that the two party system guarantees that at some point republicans will get power and when they do, they drag the window to the right rapidly. When democrats get power, they're comfortable with leaving the window where it is for the most part, insisting that we "work with republicans" while republicans never do the same. Compare eight years of Obama with four years of Trump.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

Your options are limited because the overall system is shit. You won't get more options until the entire political system is reformed and that's why I'm saying everyone is to blame, because the signs have been there for a long time.

Right now blaming the democrats does nothing because you still have to vote democrat, the alternative is a fascist who will try to completely break down the democratic apparatus. After the election Americans should start constantly demanding a reformation of the system because it no longer serves the people.

[–] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Let’s say by some miracle that another party emerges victorious, that’ll just become the new target for bribery lobbyists who will bend the party to their will anyway.

This is why reforming capitalism is a waste of time. Reforms only delay end stage, not prevent it entirely. The solution (IMO) is to diffuse the wealth and the power that comes with it into the population through worker co-ops.

Maybe that isn't the solution, who the fuck cares if I'm right or not? But we won't ever work towards that better way of life if we let the status quo lord over us all our whole lives?

I'm sure people thought feudalism was going to be forever to back in the day, much like capitalism now. Capitalism isn't thousands of years old like feudalism was. (Still is in select parts of the world)

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago

Voters decide which evil comes into power, usually by selecting the lesser evil out of 2 options. The ruling class picks which options voters can pick between, because parties secure funding and influence by courting the ruling class.

It is in this manner that change is extremely difficult electorally.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 2 points 7 months ago

More people didn't vote at all than voted for Trump. It's possible it was also more than voted for Biden as well (both on around 81 million, exact figures for none voters don't seem to be available).

Yet the system continues anyway.

They both like it if you don't vote. It means they have to spend less money influencing people.

[–] crispyflagstones@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

Who decides who comes into power? Strictly speaking, the party officials in charge of primaries in the US.

[–] in4aPenny@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I mean I can agree with the idea that if Americans did a Gaddafi on Republicans and Democrats then things would be different, hell, things would change tomorrow if Americans really wanted it, these people have names and addresses. Where I disagree is that calls for violence is bad but only because we're supposed to say violence is the wrong approach. Maybe elections played by their rules will work in our favor someday (lol).

[–] tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 months ago

The political establishment has been killing and robbing the people for centuries, it shouldn't be controversial to say we need to fight back more fiercely.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works -1 points 7 months ago

Violence is too neutral a term. According to the graph above, it's valid self-defense.