-62

At Seattle rally, Sawant says Harris deserves to lose ‘1,000 times’ (www.seattletimes.com)

submitted 1 month ago by UniversalMonk@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 8 points 1 month ago

You have made 15 comments that reference ranked choice voting in any way, with several of those emphasizing that in your opinion, Green Party support needs to come first, and only after that, can ranked choice voting come about.

Here are some examples:

I don’t feel that democrats and republicans will ever allow ranked choice to happen.

If you truly support ranked choice voting and breaking the duopoly, then you should understand that the fight starts with challenging the status quo, even if it’s uncomfortable.

There's also this absolute gem:

You argue that voting third party only serves to undermine the party most similar to it, effectively helping the opposition. But this perspective assumes the current system is the only possible framework.

The very act of voting third party is a challenge to this idea, a refusal to accept that our choices must be limited to two parties that both uphold the same capitalist structure.

While ranked-choice voting would definitely take care of some of the issues you mention, the push for third parties is not just about winning elections under the current system—it’s about forcing a broader discussion, about demanding that the system itself be questioned and eventually changed.

You've also made two posts about ranked choice voting. I don't know how many of your 5,000+ postings have dealt with Jill Stein, since the API doesn't let me count up that high, but if we conservatively say that one-third of what you say is supportive of third parties in some fashion, that means you've posted approximately 99% content supportive of third parties within our current FPTP framework, and 1% supportive of changing the framework in a way that would let third parties get some traction, which in the current system they cannot.

The question I was asking, which you didn't answer, was: Why? It seems like putting 99% effort to changing the system to allow the third parties to succeed, and 1% effort into supporting them in their currently-doomed effort, would be a better use of your time to accomplish the future you claim that you're trying to accomplish. What am I missing?󠀠󠁙󠁯󠁵󠀠󠁡󠁲󠁥󠀠󠁣󠁬󠁥󠁡󠁲󠁬󠁹󠀠󠁡󠀠󠁒󠁵󠁳󠁳󠁩󠁡󠁮󠀠󠁴󠁲󠁯󠁬󠁬󠀮

this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024

-62 points (4.4% liked)

politics

19096 readers

1825 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News