696
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 minutes ago

She's also a Russian asset and a vaccine denier.

[-] GeneralInterest@lemmy.world 17 points 6 hours ago

If the US had a single transferable vote system then you could comfortably vote for a third party, if you wanted to, without helping out the opponent you dislike the most.

You just rank the candidates, so you could rank Jill Stein as 1 if you want, then Harris as 2, and Trump below that. So then if Stein has fewer votes than Harris and Trump each have (likely) then her votes would transfer to whoever her voters ranked 2nd.

Under this system, a third party candidate is more likely to win (maybe you don't like Jill Stein, but conceivably a third party could produce a good candidate). The ballot under this system looks like this:

[-] xenoclast@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

The ballot example is bad, but I definitely think this is an improvement on the current system.

As with every system; someone will eventually find flaws and then it'll need updated. Which is how democratic countries should work.

If someone tells you the system is good enough already, you can guarantee they benefit from some inequality.

[-] chaogomu@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

We've already found the flaws in RCV and STV.

Ranked Choice has some serious flaws.

The first and strangest is the monotonicity criterion.

Ranked Choice is the only system that fails it. What it means is that you can actually improve a candidate's chance of winning by lowering their ranking on your ballot.

Oh yeah, it also still has the spoiler effect, where a third party can fuck over an election. It's just slightly harder to achieve. But the mechanism that forces two parties remains.

It's also hard to count and thus more susceptible to malicious actors.

Some of us have been screaming about these flaws for years.

There are better options. Approval is one. It's dead simple. The ballot instructions are as such. Do you approve of the candidate, mark yes or no next to any, all or none of the candidates listed.

Candidates with the highest approval win.

Approval is immune to the Spoiler effect. It would be a direct improvement vs anything being done in the world today.

And it's still not the best system out there.

That's likely to be STAR.

Immune to the Spoiler effect and also protected vs clone candidates and such, while allowing the voter to show clear preferences.

It also is constructed in such a way that it gets around some of those "one person one vote" laws put in place by the anti-voting reform people.

[-] Psythik@lemmy.world 11 points 6 hours ago

Arizona Prop 140 is trying to implement this exact system. I hope it passes.

[-] ThomasLadder_69@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 hours ago

And Colorado proposition 131

[-] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 20 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Can we just say that, going forward, if you're over 70, we don't want you in ANY high pressure leadership role.

Your career is over. Shuffle the fuck off.

[-] meliaesc@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Pretending these elderly politicians weren't elected in...

[-] AllHailTheSheep@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 hours ago

they were elected in like 40 years ago, then made it their career to stay there. so yeah, they may have won an election recently, but being an incumbent and household name in the area gives them a pretty massive advantage over anyone new running against them sadly.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 21 points 8 hours ago

Being President of the US is absolutely not the hardest job in the world if clowns like Trump and Bush could do it.

[-] pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz 13 points 6 hours ago

There's a difference in doing it and doing it well

[-] yournamehere@lemm.ee 2 points 4 hours ago
[-] NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago
[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 6 points 1 hour ago

They must still be typing, because so far they haven't responded.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Various political parties could compete to displace the Republicans with more representative electoral systems. voters could choose their preferred candidates while still counting their votes against the Republican party, even if their choice doesn't win, all without the spoiler effect. Since voting methods are determined at the state level, federal reforms aren't necessary; some states have already implemented changes. For example, Alaska recently opted for a more moderate conservative over Sarah Palin thanks to ranked-choice voting.

Who would oppose multiple opportunities to weaken Republican influence? The Democratic Party. In blue states, they could replace the First Past The Post system with one that eliminates the spoiler effect. Yet, time and again, Democrats remain inactive on passing state-level electoral reforms in the states they control.

Meanwhile, Republicans are working to safeguard FPTP voting in red states. Why do Democrats continue to use a system favored by Republicans? Why arent they searching for an alternative to FPTP voting? It's not that Democrats are unaware of the flaws in the voting system. Mentioning a third-party candidate to any Democrat will quickly reveal their in depth understanding of these mathematical flaws in the voting system. particularly concerning the Green Party apparently.

If Democrats understand the problem with the voting system, but refuse to address it, it suggests they prefer a tenuous balance over a potential rise of authoritarianism rather than genuinely competing for our votes. They seem more willing to allow the country to drift toward authoritarianism than to engage on an even playing field.

It appears to be party over country, regardless of the consequences.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

I swear I've seen this same thing, word for word, by a different username.

[-] Suavevillain@lemmy.world -5 points 3 hours ago

Embraced by Dick Cheney.

Tough on the border

Pro-Police

Wants the most lethal fighting force in the world

Committed to Israel. (Genocide)

Wants a Republican in their cabinet

You don't have the Republicans as much as you pretend you do. I'll be voting third party. I don't support Republicans, including ones with (D) next to their name.

[-] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 minutes ago

She's a known Russian asset and a vaccine denier. I wouldn't vote for her even if she had a chance at winning.

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 5 points 1 hour ago

Embraced by Putin.

Has no track record.

Pro-whatever fills the coffers.

Doesn't want to do anything between presidential elections.

You're defending a non entity.

[-] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 0 points 14 minutes ago

You conservatives aren't allies. I don't care and I will be unapologetically voting third party. Trump is winning my state for free. Your genocidal cop has no chance here. So I would be wasting my vote if I did support her and she doesn't plan on changing on her positions unless it is to court right-wingers.😀

[-] nexguy@lemmy.world 3 points 48 minutes ago

Yes, wants the most lethal fighting force in the world...attacking Ukraine into submission. She would do her best to get this done as president.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
696 points (91.3% liked)

Political Memes

5354 readers
3208 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS