1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Voting 3rd/independent is an absolute waste of a vote and always will be until that party gets strength in local and then state first. You want a true liberal party to get headway? Got to get those local people voted in. And even then it may take decades. A vote this year for president that's not Republican or Democrat will be wholly ignored.
The American political system is (literally) foreign to me. Why would a party need strength in local/state offices first?
Local elections have a lot more impact on your day-to-day life. They're just not covered much because the audience for them is so tiny it's not profitable for the media to spend their time on them.
The other reason is that it builds up a roster of candidates that can use name recognition and experience to run for higher state or federal offices. For example, my state rep started off in the town council. (He's not a progressive by any means but it's nice having someone in office I went to high school with.)
The problem is that at the national level, because of the FPTP voting system, they will still need to be a Republican or a Democrat.
FPTP sounds good on paper, but if in the end they still need >50%, doesn't that defeat the entire point?
FPTP does sound good on paper, but for every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, fast, and wrong. Here's the obligatory link to the CGP Grey video on the topic
Well okay I didn't consider the entire picture of fptp. Having multiple options to choose from doesn't automatically turn into a two party system, how power is divided after an election is the problem.
Because our first-past-the-post presidential system makes it so that it is exceptionally unlikely that any one not affiliated with the 2 largest parties can get any level of support at the federal level.
If we had a semi-parliamentary system where power was vested in the group that had the most votes in the assembly, you could see more jockeying for third parties at lower levels that still caucuses with one of the two primary parties. But as long as we have separate branches and a system where you have to get 50%+1 vote, we will only ever have 2 parties.
"leftists" like to pretend the primaries don't exist and then they are all "wah wah how did we get here?"
It's more than that though, true leftists don't really have a party in US politics at all. Democrats are still conservatives and it's a shock to liberals when they finally figure that out. And capitalists and lobbyists fight every day to keep it that way.
Politics is not black or white.
If you disagree with one, it doesn't automatically mean you are part of the opposing side.
The fact that the US has divided itself into two camps means that nothing will ever be resolved.
People are different everywhere, of every age and every location .... if politicians and political parties were more varied and numerous, we'd be far more able to get along with one another.
You’re not wrong, the problem is that the binary division was created when the initial constitution was written. And we have to function within the structure of the system as it exists now in order to improve it.
The system today suffers from a bunch of ideological debt over decades and centuries and there is a significant faction that likes that debt just the way it is because it benefits them.
And we have to function within the structure of the system as it exists now in order to improve it.
Not everyone can do that and those who do function in that system dont have that much incentive to improve it.
My personal opinion is that you do your best in life and do the right thing when it doesnt ruin you (i mean ruin literally here).
Most people cant be asked to push a button (again, literally) to help others so the ones that are already on their feet and pushing (not only buttons) for change deserve our gratitude and understanding if they decide they have given enough.
Not everyone can do that and those who do function in that system dont have that much incentive to improve it.
Aside from those who are incarcerated, not documented/housed citizens, or too young to be able to knowledgeably participate, can you help me understand why someone can’t otherwise participate via volunteering time/money, organizing, or voting for those who do support changing the system in positive ways?
"Not voting will send a strong message"
And that message is "I like paying taxes and being ignored"
How about you kill your corrupted voting system with fire. I mean literally.
One party is trying to do that and replace it with an authoritarian oligarchy, the other is trying to maintain a democracy and often improve how representative it is.
I think people think your post is right wing somehow. 🤷
Living in a two party system must suck... I dont think a choice between two parties who define themselves as the others opposite is a choice at all, the reality is just too complex to be viewed that way
Edit: Im beginning to understand the opinion portrayed here after watching a documentary on this recently, more and more people over there seem to be dissatisfied with their options and I cant necessarily judge them for not wanting a bunch of grandpas to make the important decisions
MMP isn't perfect, but it's better than any other system I'm familiar with.
I'm glad I don't live in the US and don't stand before this decision. The Republicans move further to the right and the Democrats follow to get the voters in between. Vote for the smaller evil or show them this far and no further? I don't know.
This argument could make sense if the very existence of democracy was not in question. Trump is an openly fascist candidate who is now out for revenge. There might not be a next time for the Democrats to correct their mistakes.
Getting progressive candidates in the Democratic primaries is what is necessary.
I love how controversial my comment is. Maybe I pissed both sides off.
As I said, I don't know and would feel bad eitherway but at the end, I think I would vote for Biden. Still, I would say that both arguments make sense
If we could get a version of this where the sitting figures all look as angry as the 3rd panel, it'd be perfect.