912
If Clinton, Trump, and Did Not Vote were presidential candidates in 2016
(brilliantmaps.com)
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 22 Jul 2024
912 points (97.6% liked)
Map Enthusiasts
3540 readers
589 users here now
For the map enthused!
Rules:
-
post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps
-
be nice
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What if "didn't vote" counted as "voted for both options, they're equally wonderful and we'd be happy either way"?
Well that's what it counts as now.
Not really, did not vote is exactly the same as voted for the winner. In a FPTP not voting is saying whoever wins, that's what I wanted.
I’ll take one good option. That’s all I ask, someone to vote for, not as a vote against the other person.
kamala is worth voting for tbqh
The problem with a Presidential system is that there are plenty of eligible candidates. There just aren't any "electable" ones. Even within a given state, you often only have one "electable" option, because your state is going to tilt 5-30pts towards that person anyway.
One of the appeals of a small-district parliamentary process (as seen in pretty much every other functioning liberal democracy) is that you don't need to choose between Old Racist Fuck and Coconut Lady. You can focus your attention on local politics and send up an MP aligned with a regional party willing to form coalition on the condition they can bring back some benefits to their community.
But that requires you to have elected officials you can actually meet in your neighborhood, rather than minor aristocrats who govern from impenetrable gerrymanders spread across a 50 mile territory.
That would be amazing... If it were true