this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
342 points (77.6% liked)

Memes

45877 readers
1132 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WeUnite@lemm.ee 22 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

This is a lie. People just spread this to trick you into not voting so the Republicans win.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Venat0r@lemmy.world 20 points 8 hours ago

*Long term effects of a broken 2 party voting system...

FTFY

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 22 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The short term effect of voting for the "greater evil" (or not voting at all): straight to the far, far right.

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 1 points 4 hours ago (5 children)

The time to vote for someone good is the primaries, which set what the dichotomy of the actual election is going to be like. In the November dichotomy, voting for the lesser evil is kinda the only option unless you want Big Evil to win.

Yes, it would be better to "merge" the main election and primaries into a ranked-choice vote but that's not happening anytime soon.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 16 points 14 hours ago

In other words, "B-but..."

Meanwhile, Trump takes office in 2 months. Keep polishing that halo tho!

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 43 points 19 hours ago

also known as

[–] SculptusPoe@lemmy.world -2 points 7 hours ago

You perceive it going the opposite direction of whatever you are.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 41 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

No.

Look at how the system actually works. There are two choices. Both candidates have to compete for all the people who vote. If you sit out the election that doesn't mean either candidate will try to get your vote; they'll ignore you and go after the people who do vote.

Someone else came up with this analogy. It's like the trolley problem except the there's a third option. The third choice is to throw the switch to "Neither," but "Neither" isn't connected and the trolley kills someone anyway.

[–] Belgdore@lemm.ee 19 points 14 hours ago

Or as Rush put it, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

If 5% of the general election popular vote for POTUS, knowing that the candidate cannot win, still voted for the Green Party platform then what effect would that have upon the Democratic Party platform?

On a five point difficulty scale this is a two. The test gets way harder than this.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 4 points 13 hours ago (9 children)

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a tea trolley.

Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn't vote for the alternative.

All the 'what if...?' games in the world isn't going to change that.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 30 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I feel as though there's a significant amount of extra info that isn't strictly conveyed here.

The core issue is that you only have 2 real options in america, third parties may as well not exist. So, come election time, your harm reduction option is to vote for the least evil party.

But that's not the way to solve the issue, and neither is abstaining or voting third party, IMO. The way to solve the issue happens between votes. Picketing, protesting, demonstrating, taking action, making noise. You won't solve the broken 2 party system at election time. But you do have to actually get out and take action, not just say that you will and keep letting the overton window shift right.

(Take with a pinch of salt because I'm not american)

[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 3 points 13 hours ago (6 children)

I mean, you're not the first one to say thing. People picket, people protest, people make noise. College students are arrested, protests either get Zero media attention (or worse, are regulated to an ineffective location because of regulations) or the protestors switch to disruptive tactics that actually get noticed and are demonized by everyone for it.

Like I keep hearing this "You have to go out and take action", EVERYONE IS! People are walking up and knocking on people's doors and getting punched in the face. People are outside houses getting cops called on them and arrested. Everyone is now more able to point out the bad actors and exactly how that's effecting the parties and policies.

You have Bernie Sanders and AOC out protesting and "making noise" in the spot light every damn day.

  • third party doesn't work
  • you can't solve the 2 party system
  • The way to solve the issue happens between votes

our election cycle is every 2 years or less depending on the occasion. IT IS ALWAYS ELECTION CYCLE IN AMERICAN POLITICS. They have to plan early and extensively to knock off any candidate they don't want (pulling national resources to squash anyone they view "outside" their establishment).

At this point the "make noise" comments need to reiterate what the end goal is for that make noise. You're setting people up to just be angry and upset and protest the inequality or inefficiencies of our system when that's exactly what the politicians want (it's a feature, not a bug). No amount of protesting, a litany of policies at that, will be effective when the complete political spectrum is against change. Take a look at the Civil Rights Era and the voting that was concluded, it looks completely unlike anything we have now.

The political parties have strengthened their stranglehold (I've argued in the past that they are "political parties" in name only, they are more incorporated or an oligarch representatives at this point and should be regulated as such). They listen to power only, the power was taken from the working and lower classes a long time ago. We get our shows we can put on, but it doesn't move the needle anymore. It used to at least force them to talk about moving the needle, even that's gone now.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

The core issue is that you only have 2 real options in america, third parties may as well not exist.

There's false assumptions necessary to reach this conclusion. Typically the false assumption is that the role of a third party is to win. The root cause of making this assumption is often that the scope of evaluation has been limited to one term or cycle.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not convinced that voting for a third party has any positive effect, in one election cycle or over longer time. But I'm open to hearing your perspective.

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The false assumption that most make is that one cycle doesn't effect the next.

However, if a third party garners just 5% of the general election vote for POTUS then their platform and higher quality candidate will be on every ballot in the next cycle.

If there's a third choice on every ballot then the the third party platform places tremendous and immediate pressure upon the platforms of the two major parties. The third party doesn't actually win unless the other refuse to compromise. Long term, the continued threat is of greater value than a subsequent victory.

But, the electoral scheme doesn't work unless leftists trust leftists to determine the collective risk of voting third party for the states they reside in. Even Jacobin failed to trust twice.

Things are pretty fucked. Electoral means are slow. I tend to advocate for boycott, strike, and riot (encompassing a wide scope of wisely breaking laws).

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I suppose that is a tangible way to affect change under the existing electoral system, so more power to you. I guess, with that in mind, you need to vote third party on an occasion when third party will actually get that 5% threshold, which as you say takes trust.

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (5 children)

need to vote third party on an occasion when third party will actually get that 5% threshold

non sequitur

You weren't really very open to ideas. And, you were the best of the bunch in this thread.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago (11 children)

The image only works if the right always wins though?

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Then please explain how this works. This image isn't doing it for me.

[–] Enfors@lemm.ee 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

If the republicans win, it goes further right. If the democrats win, it stays where it is. So the only movement is to the right, never left.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 15 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Also the lesser evil kills all enthousiam and loses the election.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›