The debate gets interesting sometimes
The debate gets interesting sometimes
You're viewing a single thread.
435 comments
-
The problem is that we have two choices, and we will never not have two choices unless we do something about it. I can both say that Joe Biden sucks and we should do better and also vote for him because the other option is worse. This discourse that makes it seem like any criticism of Biden is pro trump is how we will end up in a slightly less terrible place. Cool. Really looking forward to that.
Also like what the fuck...I guess we have to kill Palestinians no matter what.
There is a third fucking option and it's not doing a genocide.
-
There is a third fucking option and it's not doing a genocide.
That's only an option if you have a viable strategy for accomplishing it.
-
Which, of course, they don't. It's a vanity vote. They want to pretend they have actually done something without actually having to do anything of consequence.
-
It's an expression of privilege.
-
If we're interpreting their "third option" as a voting strategy and not convincing Biden to step in and stop the genocide, we can at least implement Approval Voting so that they can vote for all the "no genocide" candidates without having to worry that doing so could somehow backfire. Then, if they want or need to, they can cast a strategic vote to differentiate between different magnitudes of genocide.
-
we can at least implement Approval Voting
No, you can't. You do not have the power to implement Approval Voting, and nobody who does have the power wants to do it. So it's not gonna happen, at least not in the short term. Right now, anybody who wins has to win in an environment of First Past the Post. Nobody capable of doing that currently supports Approval Voting, so right now it is effectively not on the ballot.
This is what I mean about "hav[ing] a viable strategy." Magically wishing Approval Voting into existence ain't it.
-
Well the strategy is to work your way up from the local level because:
- It's easier for people to make change at the local level, Fargo and St. Louis have already done it.
- Politicians tend to work their way up the ladder, and will be more open to using the system at higher levels if they already proved they can win under that system.
You have to remember that any real social change takes years, even decades of organized to realize. We didn't go from Jim Crowe to the civil rights act in a fortnight, it took big organizations applying decades of pressure in multiple different ways.
If you want to be a part of the solution, join an organization dedicated to improving things. It doesn't have to be the one I linked, but Election Science is the one working on approval voting. Local elections are such that one highly motivated person can build and run the organization to flip their local election laws, it could be you, but it won't happen overnight.
-
-
Yes, we need to change the way we vote before voting for POTUS can really move away from a binary choice.
-
Great. That is a state issue, so pay attention to your state government, vote for state representatives that support better voting methods, and contact your state representatives to push for reform.
That doesn't change this trolley problem.
-
As someone else pointed out, those in power are unlikely to change the voting system to reduce their own power. However, you really start at the local level with referendums, and work your way up. First, it's easier to force change at the local level and second, politicians working their way up will be less hostile to changing to approval if they've already shown they can win under that system.
-
-
-
-
Step one: Stop rewarding genocide with votes. 🤷
-
I agree, now how do we go about making everyone else see it too?
-
Apparently we can't in 2024. They didn't hear us in 2016. They won't hear us now in 2024. Maybe two Democrat juggernauts losing the presidential election to Trump of all people will convince them.
-
-
-
-
The problem is that we have two choices
The problem is that we don't. If you're not in a "swing" state, all the votes in the world for Joe Biden are meaningless. Win California by another million votes. Win it by another 10M. Have every single eligible voter in California turn up and vote for Joe Biden. He still loses the EC when the SCOTUS tells Arizona to stop counting ballots the minute Trump is in the lead.
Also like what the fuck…I guess we have to kill Palestinians no matter what.
We have to keep sending money to Israel because its the means by which we control the Suez Canal.
Except... the Houthis have control over the back end of the canal so long as they're able to scare off shipping in the Gulf of Adan. So now we're endorsing a genocide just for shits and giggles.
-
It's almost like two organizations have totally monopolized US politics. It's a billion dollar industry, and they'd both rather alternate losing to each other and keep their seat at the table than let anyone else play the game.
-
Its an enormously lucrative game, so who can blame them?
-
you blame us for going along with it and blame those who shame anyone who points out that we don't have to go along with it.
-
-
-
-
Because of a shitty situation set up by countless past people and events completely out of your control you have to make a choice here. And in my mind, it's not even a difficult choice. Yes, either option will support Israel, that's a given, but there is no third option so it might as well not even be a factor in choosing a candidate.
If you want more parties and to remove first past the post then you need to elect the party who supports those stances. That is one of your two options. Real fucking simple.
-
No. I do not vote for strike blocking genocide supporting candidates. Real fucking simple.
-
You will elect a much worse one by not supporting a much better one.
-
That's their goal.
-
-
-
-
435 comments