mlg ,
@mlg@lemmy.world avatar

SCOTUS nullifying literally all the progressive laws intended to protect the people.

How in the actual hell did we go from justices like Hugo Black who was a straight up KKK member but switched sides and became one of the most liberal judges in American history, to the likes of Brett Kavanaugh who spends his free time getting drunk

bloodfart ,

hey, you can vote for a third party that represents your ideals and politics and it's not throwing your vote away or voting for trump.

you don't have to feel blackpilled, the way out of this is past the winners of this next election, not through them.

Shardikprime ,

This. Sounds like much but people need to take the L, and create a wedge big enough that neither side can stop noticing anymore

bloodfart ,

I’m always flabbergasted by people who say no you shouldn’t vote third party and should instead start from grassroots organizing.

It’s like, what do you think clocking support for a third party is?

samus12345 ,
@samus12345@lemmy.world avatar

It's a failed democratic republic that's sliding into fascism.

TheReturnOfPEB ,

fascism is an amoral slide tackle to democratic republics

geneva_convenience , (edited )

RCV is the next carrot to keep idiots voting Democrat. The Bernie plan got exposed and Biden is not much lesser evil than Trump anymore. We have to give them a reason to be stupid enough to keep voting blue.

When RCV almost takes hold they will both sides a bullshit authoritarian move out of their ass and ban it.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

The Bernie plan got exposed

Can you take a minute to explain what you mean by this?

geneva_convenience , (edited )

Bernie almost won so the DNC turned against him.

Now everyone has given up on getting a progressive Democrat in power so a new carrot is needed. Which is RCV.

Cryophilia ,

Shit, that's why the store was out of tinfoil

geneva_convenience ,

The DNC rigging the election against Bernie is a well established fact.

Your lack of knowledge but overconfidence symbolizes everything the DNC hopes their voters are.

hernanca ,

His narrative is a bit wonky but the general idea is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

Trump's presidency was so chaotic that it made us forget that the DNC Chair resigned mid campaign because of this scandal.

Cryophilia ,

So the emails, hacked by Russians, revealed that a lot of Democrats didn't like Bernie. Big fucking deal, a lot of people didn't like Bernie. What did the DNC supposedly do to hurt Bernie?

And the DNC chair resigned because Democrats always resign. See Al Franken. Doesn't matter if they did anything wrong, Dems are just spineless.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

So the emails, hacked by Russians,

I have to wonder... If the Russians had hacked Bernie Madoff or Sam Bankman Fried, would Reddit Liberals think they were heroes, too?

Doesn’t matter if they did anything wrong

It does though. It matters quite a bit.

Cryophilia ,

It should, but it doesn't. Dems resign all the time because of a "perception of impropriety" or whatever the fuck. Dem officials are spineless, and social justice warriors are bloodthirsty vampires.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Dems resign all the time because of a “perception of impropriety” or whatever the fuck.

I wish they did. Guys like Cuellar and Menendez cling stubbornly to their seats. I wouldn't be surprised if Eric Adams needs to get dragged out of the mayor's office before too long.

social justice warriors are bloodthirsty vampires

Advice to Dems who keep getting in trouble. Maybe stop doing crimes.

Cryophilia ,

It's starting to change because (thank Christ) Dems have realized how stupid resigning at the drop of a hat is.

The ones who do crimes will get forced out as the evidence will support their removal via the proper legal processes.

The ones who didn't actually do anything wrong will rightly ignore the SJWs until something else shiny captures their attention, and they will not get forced out because the evidence will not support it.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

The ones who do crimes will get forced out

I'll believe it when I finally see it.

rsuri ,

Trump: "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” (Truth Social post, Dec. 3. 2022)

So what has Biden done that is "not much lesser evil" than trying to terminate the Constitution?

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

He's been sponsoring a genocide in Gaza for the last six months, just for starters. His federal agencies helped coordinate violent police crackdowns of peaceful student protests, from Columbia to UCLA.

He's continued Trump era immigration laws and even tightened them, resulting in the deaths of dozens of lawful asylum seekers in US custody and hundreds more in the wilderness along the US-Mexico border.

He continues to keep War Criminals like Elliot Abrams in his cabinet, and sponsors their efforts to inflict more coups and banana republics across Latin America.

He's accelerated climate change by approving record new oil leases on public land, in exchange for O&G kickbacks to his party.

He bailed out Silicon Valley and Signature Banks to the tune of billions in order to protect depositors who had explicitly sought to avoid the cost of FDIC insurance, and received more kick backs in kind.

He kept Louis DeJoy at the Post Office, giving Trump's man another four years to dismantle the largest non-military government employer.

I can keep going...

rsuri ,

The problem is that as far as I can tell, in every last thing you mention Biden is completely dominated by Trump's policies in terms of deplorableness.

For example, Louis Dejoy - Biden has merely refused to exceed his constitutional authority to fire DeJoy, something he has utterly no power to do and would immediately be overturned by the Supreme Court, helped along by the 3 extreme conservatives Trump put on the court. Meanwhile he's started the process by ousting DeJoy's allies. And of course, it was Trump who put DeJoy there in the first place. It's like refusing to take the side of the Allies over the Axis because they're not moving quickly enough to defeat Hitler. Yeah I get that it's frustrating, but logically if you don't like DeJoy, take the one side that's anti-DeJoy. Trump obviously plans to keep him in as long as possible.

Or Israel. Biden's policy is to continue funding Israel, and he's backed by Congress and Trump in doing so. But Trump has gone much further than Biden or any other Democrat, having rewarded Israel's oppression of Palestinians by recognizing Jerusalem as their capital, and giving the Medal of Freedom to Miriam Adelson, who openly supports Israel annexing the West Bank and has continued supporting Trump in 2024, donating him $100 million

Or climate change, immigration, etc. There's a lot of hopeful fossil fuel CEOs spending tons on Trump, who wants to roll back all attempts to transition away from gasoline-fueled cars, there was that whole family separations thing, etc. Talking about war criminals, Trump actually pardoned a bunch of them including one convicted of first degree murder in the deaths of 14 Iraqi civilians, at the behest of his rich friend Erik Prince.

Point being, even if we limit ourselves to just looking at the bad things Biden has done, they're still much lesser evil.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

The problem is that as far as I can tell, in every last thing you mention Biden is completely dominated by Trump’s policies in terms of deplorableness.

They're all continuations of Trump's policies. Biden didn't reverse them like he campaign on. In many cases, he made them worse.

For example, Louis Dejoy - Biden has merely refused to exceed his constitutional authority to fire DeJoy

Yes. Because Biden's perfectly fine with privatization and always has been.

Or Israel. Biden’s policy is to continue funding Israel, and he’s backed by Congress and Trump in doing so.

Yes. Because Biden is perfectly fine with the genocide of the Palestinians and the reclamation of Gaza by Israeli settlers.

Or climate change, immigration, etc.

Yes, because Biden is beholden to the O&G lobby and perfectly happy with mass incarceration, etc.

Point being, even if we limit ourselves to just looking at the bad things Biden has done, they’re still much lesser evil.

They're the same evil because they're the same policies.

TechNerdWizard42 ,

I love how so many Americans staunchly and aggressively proclaim none of these issues (or the multitude of others not listed) just simply don't exist.

Then after a quick google, may agree they exist but only "not in my backyard, therefore it doesn't really happen".

Then with some realization hopefully see it happens not only right where they live but the entire country. But that last part is rare.

And generally the best outcome is "well if you vote for my guy, everything will be solved". Ignoring the 99% of issues that the 2 main parties agree on but create too many profits for donors to ever be looked at.

Other countries would be called olagarchies when a few rich people get their interests catered to and everyone else is along for the rude. Other countries are called theocracies that offer a far greater actual religious freedom than the US and do not enact Christian/Catholic laws like abortion and 10 commandments in schools. I can keep going for hours. But those that get it, already got it. And those that don't, won't ever until they escape American propaganda.

The downvotes by ignorant Americans are welcome.

RememberTheApollo_ ,

What is “anti-electoral disinformation”

spujb OP ,

“don’t vote because it makes you complicit in your oppression” and similar

RememberTheApollo_ ,

Ah, gotcha. Thanks.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

that's true though. do you have any examples that are actually misinformation?

spujb OP ,

You know who else spreads misinformation? This so-called "innovator" and "entrepreneur" who manipulates facts and deceives everyone around him for his own gain. His lies have caused endless confusion and suffering, leaving a trail of broken trust in his wake. You might think I'm talking about some notorious public figure, but no—it's William Afton. That guy has spun so many falsehoods that it's hard to keep track. If anyone's an expert in spreading misinformation, it's definitely him.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

does he have anti-electoral misinformation i should be on the lookout for? why bring him up?

Enkrod , (edited )
@Enkrod@feddit.de avatar

Can you explain to me how voting makes one complicit? And how not voting doesn't make you complicit when the worse of two evils is elected?

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

Can you explain to me how voting makes one complicit? And how not voting doesn’t make one complicit when the worse of two evils is elected?

if you vote to put someone in power, you are complicit in their actions in office. if you don't vote for that person, you can't be complicit.

Enkrod ,
@Enkrod@feddit.de avatar

Hmmm, no, that's at least not how I think and feel about it. It's akin to the Trolley Problem for me, where, if my inaction kills/negatively impacts more people than my action, I am morally obligated to take action.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

oh, i think pulling the lever makes you a murderer. but that's the point of the trolley problem: it's not that there is a right answer, its that your answer will help you understand your own morality.

AeonFelis ,

Are you willing to let four more people die just to avoid being a murderer? Do you assign to that label more moral value than you assign to human lives?

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

I'm not willing to be a murderer. you seem to be overlooking the person you would be killing.

AeonFelis ,

And you are overlooking the other 5 people, claiming that you are not complicit in their death even though you, as the one standing at the lever, are the only one able to save them. Your status as "non-murderer" is more important to you than their lives.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

I didn't put any of them in that position, and I'll be damned if I murder anyone.

AeonFelis ,

You didn't put any of them in that position. And you didn't put that other person in a position where scarifying them is the only way to save the five people. You are not responsible for the situation, and yet you ended up with the power to pick the outcome. Out of several bad outcomes, yes - but you still have the the opportunity to pick the lesser evil.

You wish you didn't get that opportunity. You wish you weren't in this position. The six people tied to the track also wish they weren't in this position. But this is not real life, where complaining about the unfairness and wishing the misfortune didn't happen to you can solve everything and make everyone happy. This is a moral dilemma, engineered to root out the smart solutions and leave you with the hard choice - four human lives weighted against your personal moral status.

And you decided that four lives is an acceptable price to pay so that you can keep basking in your innocence.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

your characterization is bad faith. my degree is in philosophy. i know what my ethics are, and it's not "Bask in innocence at all costs". it's "do the right thing". the right thing cannot be determined by the outcome since we can't know the future, so it would be impossible to know what the right thing to do is. therefore, the ethics of the action must be in the action itself. murdering people is bad. pulling the lever is bad. qed.

AeonFelis ,

You do know the future though. At least - to some extent. You know that one of two candidates is going to be elected, not matter what. Or, at least, almost no matter what. Maybe a huge asteroid will hit the Earth and the elections won't matter. But the probability for these is so low, that you can effectively "count on" the fact that one of these two candidates is going to get elected.

The only question is which one.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

knowledge of the future is impossible since you can only know true things and the future hasn't happened yet, so it has no truth value.

AeonFelis ,

Isn't the entire anti-voting argument based on the knowledge that the candidate you'll vote for will do bad things in the future?

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

no? it's knowing what they've said and done in the past

AeonFelis ,

What they've said and done in the past serves as an indicator for what they'll do in the future if elected. If you ignore that aspect, then voting becomes a system for rewarding politicians rather than a system for deciding the future of a country.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

but the ethics can't be in what they do in the future. the ethics of the action are in the vote itself, and the only information yo uhave is about the past.

AeonFelis ,

So... ^(1)^ voting for bad people is bad, not because they'll do bad things if they'll be put in power, but because ^jump\ to\ (1)^?

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

the ethics are in the action itself. yes.

AeonFelis ,

So it all boils down to "because I said so" and I can't argue with that because you really did say so...

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

I'm not over here trying to argue you out of consequentialism. there is absolutely no way you're going to argue a degreed philosopher out of deontology (today. you could learn, maybe)

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

you still have the the opportunity to pick the lesser evil.

i have a policy against choosing evil.

AeonFelis ,

And the result of that policy is greater evil getting chosen.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

I'm not responsible for what others choose.

AeonFelis ,

I'm sure this little fact will provide great comfort during the fascist regime.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

this is a thought terminating cliche. it doesn't rebuttal what I said or develop your position.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

This is a moral dilemma, engineered to root out the smart solutions and leave you with the hard choice - four human lives weighted against your personal moral status.

that's literally not what it is. it helps you understand your own ethical instincts. i'm deontological, and no deontologist, having examined the full trolley problem, pulls the lever. consequentialists do, but i believe consequential ethics is bad. it leads to doing bad things and even internally cannot consistently tell you the right thing to do.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

have you considered that "the end justify the means" is bad, actually, and that deontological ethics are the only way to actually be sure you are doing the right thing?

AeonFelis ,

This is an acceptable position. "Even if you think murder is good in a specific case - don't. Too many past murderers also tried to justify their acts. We humans are too good at self serving rationalization to be trusted with such things"

The problem with this, is that you can't drag that solution to the voting issue. It works for the trolley problem because it relies on the fact that murder is a big taboo. Voting isn't a big taboo - you don't have a long history of "voting is bad" consensus. That idea is new, and has to stand on its own merits.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

and no one is saying voting is bad. but voting for bad people definitely is bad.

AeonFelis ,

Not voting is giving half a vote to the worse candidate.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

you can't give half a vote.

AeonFelis ,

Let's say Alice has a lead of one vote over Bob.

  • If one Alice voter decided to vote for Bob instead - Bob will have a lead of one vote.
  • If two Alice voters decide to abstain from voting - Bob will also have a lead of one vote.

Two non-voters are equivalent to one voter switching sides. Therefore - one non-vote is equivalent to half a vote for the opponent.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

you still haven't shown how to give half a vote

AeonFelis , (edited )

I showed how not voting counts as half a vote.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

but it doesn't. it isn't counted at all. this is mental gymnastics that leads to actual election misinformation. stop.

AeonFelis ,

it isn’t counted at all

Puns are not valid arguments. If broke into a ballot box (for the same of the argument, let's ignore all the security measures) and took out all the votes for the candidate I didn't like, these votes will literally won't be counted. Does that mean my action doesn't count?

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

it's not a pun. there is no pun at all. you're lying about how votes are counted.

AeonFelis ,

The pun is about the double meaning of the word "count":

  1. The literal act of measuring the number of instances of a certain thing. In our case - whether the people working the election will physically be able to count the physical vote (or digitally. This is about the concept in general, not about a particular voting mechanism)
  2. A contribution toward something. In our case - the fact the votes were stolen affects the outcome, so it counts toward changing the result.

So what am I lying about exactly? I've presented an hypothetical case, and made two claims about it:

  • That the stolen votes will not get counted (in the first meaning of the word)
  • That my action counts (in the second meaning of the word)

Which of these claim is incorrect?

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

I thought we were talking about counting votes the whole time. I'm not interested in helping you with your mental gymnastics routine.

AeonFelis ,

I thought we were talking about counting votes the whole time.

We are, sort of, but counting votes is not just a fun pastime activity - it's a mean for determining who will take the power (or, in depending on the political system, how the power will be distributed) so my argument is that there is a meaning to the result of that count.

geneva_convenience ,

You can take action and pick the path that kills nobody. But too many are fearmongered into kill 10 or kill 9.

The 9 or 10 voters are responsible for the killing. They actively vote against kill 0.

Semi_Hemi_Demigod ,
@Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world avatar

Forgot to add:

  • The Electoral College
  • Congressional apportionment
  • The Senate
spujb OP ,

thanks i made this in a rush and definitely could have put more details :)

ILikeBoobies ,

EC is there for a reason, it’s just not used for that reason

Imagine a candidate loyal to one of America’s enemies was voted in. The EC is there to stop that

Semi_Hemi_Demigod ,
@Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world avatar

Didn't work in 2016...

ILikeBoobies ,

it’s just not used for that reason

Yeah, some where along the line they gained party loyalty

Flax_vert ,

A constiutional monarch is a better defence against that

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Absolutely. The problem with modern politicians is that they simply don't own enough real estate.

Flax_vert ,

No, the problem is that they're elected. So the winner with absolute power is the one who can scam people and rig the system into giving them it. Vs a family which legally holds all of the power and supreme military authority but delegates it to a democratic system

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

the winner with absolute power is the one who can scam people and rig the system

You don't think monarchs scam people or rig economic systems?

I'm guessing you've never heard of Mohammad Bin Salmen.

a family which legally holds all of the power and supreme military authority but delegates it to a democratic system

A political fiction. The British Royals reserve the right to block legislation and routinely get their way simply by threatening to do so.

The Saudis and the Singaporese are even more naked in their disregard for democratic rule.

And we all know how the dictatorial governorship of Hong Kong ended. China quite literally bought the governor out.

Flax_vert ,

Since when was Mohammed Bin Salman a constitutional monarch? Your two examples on why constitutional monarchy is bad uses countries that aren't constitutional monarchies.

If we're doing this, I may as well show how Vladimir Putin is an example of why a democratically elected president is a bad idea. The advantage with a monarch is that you're rolling the dice every 20-30 years (70 in the case of Elizabeth II) and you know who the next person is. If they were truly evil there'd be enough time to stop them from coming up and depose them. With an elected president it's unpredictable, every 5-10 years, and it's not obvious who'd replace them either.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Since when was Mohammed Bin Salman a constitutional monarch?

Since the King ratified the Basic Law of Governance in 1992.

I may as well show how Vladimir Putin is an example of why a democratically elected president is a bad idea.

Relabel him a Constitutional Monarch, though. Suddenly he's a good idea again?

The advantage with a monarch is that you’re rolling the dice every 20-30 years (70 in the case of Elizabeth II)

How is that any different from a popular president operating without term limits? Or a popular party that consistently holds the majority of seats in government?

Is the little gold hat adding something I can't see? Or do you just like the pomp and circumstance of royalty?

With an elected president it’s unpredictable

The French spent nearly a century jumping back and forth between popular revolution and bourbon restoration. Was that more predictable?

How about the War of the Roses? Or the numerous Seljuk wars of succession in Iraq and Persia? Or the Taiping Rebellion?

Inflexible monarchies prompted each of these social catastrophes.

The Roman Imperial Era was rife with instability, with Rome violently changing hands multiple times in a given year.

That's far more unpredictable than a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump-Biden hand off, particularly when so much of the "deep state" doesn't really change.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Imagine a candidate loyal to one of America’s enemies was voted in.

A candidate who won the state-weighted national popularity contest would only be "one of America's enemies" if the weighting was wildly off. Even then, Said candidate wouldn't be the enemy of all Americans, just enemy of the states with the underweight majority.

And if half of America hates the other half? Then every president is loyal to one of America's enemies.

Cryophilia ,

There's another option: at least half of America is incredibly ignorant about their candidate.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Idk. I think a lot of Trump guys are getting exactly what they want. And I think a lot of Biden guys really do want a Reagan Democrat on the throne.

Saying you were hoodwinked just lets you gracefully detach from a candidate once they lose popularity.

angstylittlecatboy ,

Trump is a Russian asset

h3mlocke ,
@h3mlocke@lemm.ee avatar

Yeah, imagine...

CaptainKickass ,

It OBVIOUSLY doesn't work by your own definition

Maybe you were being sarcastic

ilost7489 ,

It's a system designed to keep the 2 parties in power. Voting third party means your vote is effectively wasted in a FPTP system

Shardikprime ,

If enough people do it over time I wouldn't think so right?

Each time they would win over and over more seats.

But of course that would require voters to recognize the situation, take the L and keep on continuing voting the third party

ilost7489 ,

In FPTP, not really because voting third party can split the vote between multiple parties meaning that none of them get a relative majority of votes and their common opponent wins instead. The system encourages you to vote for the next closes party that is the most likely to get more votes (strategic voting). It entirely favours a 2 party dynamic

This is a good video explanation that you may have seen before as it is popular

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

that video illustrates the problem with strategic voting: it consolidates parties. the lesson you sohuld learn from it is that strategic voting is actually voting against your own interest.

nek0d3r ,

Without a better voting system, there's not really much choice otherwise. Voting third party requires a majority of voters to not only know the downsides of the system and style of voting, but also to trust that the rest of that majority are going to both know and act on that before they act that way themselves. Otherwise it would just be contributing to the spoiler effect. It would be like trying to pause a game of Fortnite, or convincing states to cast electoral votes according to the national popular vote without, I don't know, some sort of National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

PeggyLouBaldwin ,

if the choice is blue fascists or red fascists, it's no choice at all.

nek0d3r ,

I'm afraid to tell you that you're right

Shardikprime ,

This. Thinking that strategic way got them into this mess in the first place

Shardikprime ,

But that's the point of a new party, to split the votes. In the end you need to create a wedge big enough that neither side can ignore

But again, that takes way too much from people. They need to take the L a few times before actually pulling something worthwhile

Sam_Bass ,

And just lopping all that off might just kill us. We would die clean though

drhugsymcfur ,

Forget your "dying clean" baloney. Stop fetishizing a civil war.

I've got things I want to do in the coming years that don't involve dying to some right wing death squad or dysentery.

PugJesus ,
@PugJesus@lemmy.world avatar

Nah, state laws get reversed all the time - not by the judiciary, but simply by the next legislature. Obviously definitely fight for RCV and fair representation tooth and nail, but there's no need to go full blackpilled. We're still in the running!

Etterra ,

Why would they ban ranked choice? Oh right, because they'd absolutely never get elected if they couldn't cheat with the current gerrymandered hell they've built.

Semi_Hemi_Demigod ,
@Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world avatar

They're banning it because it's confusing. We are literally too stupid to have a representative government.

explodicle ,

It's not confusing at all. They're bullshitting us.

There is no filter through which stupid votes can result in smart goverment. If we make it less representative it just becomes more corrupt.

Cosmos7349 ,

States have banned ranked choice voting??? wtf why???

TheFunkyMonk ,
@TheFunkyMonk@lemmy.world avatar

Because it’s progress. Shockingly, the five states that have banned it are red.

choco_crispies ,

All ten states that have banned it are red, and the ones that have it on the upcoming ballot are as well.

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4969563/ranked-choice-voting-bans

Edit: added link

spujb OP ,

ostensible answer:

“We believe in the one person, one vote system of elections that our country was founded upon,” Missouri state Sen. Ben Brown, the ballot measure’s sponsor, said in an interview.

Brown and other critics of ranked choice voting contend the system is confusing, and he said there are numerous instances in which voters didn’t end up ranking their choices.

real answer: republicans don’t win as much when rcv is in place.

lolcatnip ,

I hate slogans like "one person, one vote" or "innocent until proven guilty" because so many people treat them as principles in themselves rather catchy names for principles that are much more nuanced than those names suggest. It doesn't matter how many "votes" a person has the ability to cast so long as everyone is given an equally opportunity to influence the outcome of an election.

BluesF ,

Yes as long as it isnt one person 8 votes another person 9. Although, the electoral college somewhat is that anyway... A vote in one state is not equivalent to a vote in another.

Semi_Hemi_Demigod ,
@Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world avatar

Another one I hate is "Let me ask a simple yes or no question:" Proceeds to ask a very complex question with a lot of nuance

Then, when the person tries to clarify the person asking just says "I just want a yes or a no."

Both parties do it, and it's just scoring political points every time.

Viking_Hippie ,

To paraphrase Reservoir Dogs: Senator Brown sounds an awful lot like Senator Shit..

hannes3120 ,

If you can rank your votes and have multiple options available you actually have to stand for something in order for people to vote for you.

Being against another party is not enough in such a system since there are more options available.

Paprika ,

Because with ranked choice people can vote for Jane the Socialist but also pencil in a secondary, begrudging vote for Joe Biden. They want lefties to split their vote. They want a vote for the Greens to be a loss for the Democrats. Ranked choice kind of negates that.

Furbag ,

Can you guess which party that holds a tenuous grasp over their constituents via fear would not want them having the option of voting for other people that might more closely align with their ideals and morals?

I mean, technically it's both parties at this point, but Republicans know that RCV will be the absolute death of the current version of their party which has devolved into little more than a reactionary ultranationalist faction.

grue ,

https://lemmy.world/post/16221262?scrollToComments=true

spujb OP ,

a broken clock something something, getting to the right conclusion by the wrong means something something…

eeeyy macarena

ryry1985 ,

Ay

CaptainSpaceman ,

Union busting

Rolling back regulations

The list goes on....

pivot_root ,

A small correction:

Rolling back regulations that don't benefit their agenda

They're pretty fucking happy to introduce new ones and leave existing ones alone when it serves to fuck over the average citizen or LGBTQ+ community.

lolcatnip ,

Those things are evil but I don't see how they're anti-democratic.

Successful_Try543 , (edited )

Union busting undermines the democratic co-determination in the company. However, for an American it is probably shocking that this does exist at all (at least in civilized countries). 😉

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

A policy that constricts the enfranchisement of the general public is anti-democratic.

If, every year, you introduce a set of laws that makes felons out of half your political opposition, you quickly create for yourself a one party monopoly.

lolcatnip ,

Making felons out of your opposition through... deregulation and union busting? Huh?

Also felons should be able to vote, even when they're in prison. The fact that they can't is undemocratic.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Also felons should be able to vote, even when they’re in prison.

You're preaching to the choir. But you're also making my point.

Also, I'd hardly call the criminalization of LGBTQ communities, migrant communities, and women's health clinics a deregulatory policy.

lolcatnip ,

Look at what I was replying to. It specifically mentioned union busting, deregulation, and nothing else.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • politicalmemes@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •