399
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
399 points (92.9% liked)
politics
19145 readers
1533 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
All it takes is for Biden to develop a sudden health problem, as old people sometimes do; then it's Trump vs Kamala Harris and we're fucked.
Trump is only 3 years younger. They're both old as fuck.
That and Biden still jogs and bikes. Trump has a hard time shuffling down a ramp.
And drinking water with one hand.
Similarly Trump could fall over dead tomorrow and then it's old man Biden vs young . This is the current plan for any Republican currently in the race, the hope that Trump takes himself out, either via the legal system or just poor general health, and then they can swoop in and be Trump "lite".
Trump could fall over dead and his cult of followers would still vote for him.
That would be good, wouldn't it?
Yes, but I think the point they were making is that the plan to wait for trump to die is kinda pointless.
Well not if the dead guy actually won!
Hamberder/Coronary for the win!
Yeah, but if it's DeSantis the GOP is still screwed. Normal people hate him, too.
As long as the same two parties rule the country in a cycle you will always be fucked
There are different levels of fucked though.
And there's also the possibility of not voting these two parties
Yes but no one here said they wanted to guarantee an advantage to Republicans, unless that is what you are saying?
How does not voting for these two parties advantages one or the other?
First Past The Post voting means that if you have one right-wing candidate get 40% of the vote, and three left-wing candidates get 20% each, the right-winger wins.
It's not the system we want, but it's the system we've got, and until we have the power to change that, it's the rules we'll have to work with.
Enough of this bullshit, any party has the same chances of winning the vote don't trust the propaganda
Except that in reality, the party with the most money and familiarity and that aligns most closely with the majority of VOTING people tends to win in American elections. We only have two parties. Whether you like that or not, that's the reality. Everyone on the left who votes for a third party is literally throwing their vote away.
Until we have Ranked Choice voting from the local level to the executive level, we will never have more than two parties.
And since we only have two parties, those parties agree on 1 thing: Never let Ranked Choice Voting happen.
You split the vote. If you would have voted for one of the parties but you instead vote for a third party, third parties are not going to win in this day and age and your vote can no longer support whichever of the two parties you prefer. If enough members of one party does that (because they have simmilar views), the party that doesn't have some of their voters voting for a third party gains an advantage. It's kinda dumb but it's also why it was inevitable that this voting system would become 2 party.
We need Ranked Choice Voting for presidency ASAP. I am super happy to see that it's making it's way into some states lower votes. But to be honest out of all the things I vote on, the most important one feels like the President and that's the one I want RCV for.
As long as people like you keep drinking the propaganda made by the two parties system that no third party can win, then no third party will ever win
It's not propaganda, it's reality.
Fucking hell, do you really expect for one of the third parties to actually get 50% of total voters? Third parties have occasionally done alright in recent years but alright for a third party isn't even close to winning, if they won a state it would be a HUGE deal. The current system pushes against third parties because the risk isn't worth potentially splitting the votes to most voters. There has to be an actual change to how we vote to make voting for third parties viable.
Bullshit, any third party has the same changes of winning the propaganda makes you believe only red and blue can win
I'm sorry to say that they simply don't. The way our voting system works, there is no chance that a third party will gain enough traction to actually win without something insane happening. There is a reason that our system naturally drifted towards 2 parties. I would love it if our voting system actually made it so third parties had a serious chance of winning but for that to happen you need to get a huge portion of voters to switch to that same third party, and they aren't going to do that. I know you want to believe that it's possible that a third party can just win it all but for them to win you would basically have to flip an entire party. The crazy thing about that is, if somehow that were to happen, if you got every Democrat to vote green this upcoming election cycle, the parties would just shift from being Republican / Democrat to Republican / Green. That wouldn't happen because there is no shot in hell of it because the vast majority of people aren't going to vote third party because they want to prevent a split vote, but even if it did it would pretty quickly turn back into 2 parties.
Here is a helpful video 12 years ago that shows how this sort of voting leads towards a 2 party system. https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
There are dozen of nations around the world with more than 3 parties. The reason no third party can win in USA is because of people like you spreading propaganda and idiocy that no third party can win.
Yea but those other countries are different, for the vast majority of SUCCESSFUL multi-party systems they are proprtionaly represented, this can be done in multiple ways, like having districts with multiple representatives unlike in the US where each district gets 1. Generally, to make those successful, though, there needs to be a pooling of the votes and an actual representation instead of the winner take all system America has. If you want to learn more about the natural gravitation that first past the post voting has towards 2 party's watch the video above or look up Duverger's Law, the law in political science explaining how this system gravitated towards 2 parties over time. You can also just do research on first past the post voting and see how this is just one of its downsides.
Also, you asked a question, I (and some others) answered the question, and you are lashing out in a really just rude way. You apparently didn't know about this affect, which is fine, but you are unable to actually listen, internalize, and consider out answers without just responding that we are just spreading propaganda without any evidence as to why your belief might be right. I want third parties to win, I am just also aware that our current political system simply favors a Two Party System.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/s7tWHJfhiyo
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Oh! Oh! You're one of the 10k today! Watch this please. It's awesome and 6 minutes. If that's too long, watch it at 1.25x speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
I'll never understand why the DNC didn't start grooming someone for 2020 immediately the day after the election in November 2016. Yet another tactical blunder that is so characteristic of the party.
They did. She didn’t stand out
Who are you referring to?