955
submitted 6 months ago by Confidant6198@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] StThicket@reddthat.com 76 points 6 months ago

It amazes me that one of the largest countries in the world, with the most diverse demographics, can only chose between two candidates. This is not democracy. It's a shit show that has been going on for far too long.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 48 points 6 months ago

America is a one party dictatorship, and in typical American extravagence, it has two of them.

[-] pingveno@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Said by a man who ran a country that outlawed all but the party he was prime minister of. He was probably a little salty about criticism over the lack of democracy in his country.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Just mention an alternative and you'll will quickly understand why.

The parties have done the most amazing job in pretending the world will end at every election if they are not chosen.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago

It is kind of amazing how even those disenfranchised voters will rally to support the hegemony of the “two party” corporatist rule. I suggested recently we could consider rallying behind a single issue 3rd party candidate who would end the legalized bribes and replace FPTP with a more democratic alternative, and was immediately downvoted and told it’s not possible due to FPTP.

facepalm

[-] glitchdx@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

In order for a 3rd option to be viable, the entire system must change. I'm not holding my breath.

Between now and then, all we can do is vote for the less bad of two evils.

[-] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It is theoreticaly possible, but praticaly speaking it would be near impossible.

To acomplish this, you need to get 51% of the population (who actually vote) to all vote for one person. However, with FPTP, you get one choice on the ballot. Is the average voter going to risk their vote on a 3rd party, or vote for who they belive to be the "lesser evil" of the two that have a shot at winning?

Even if you do manage to get 51%, there's the electoral collage. Never forget, our democracy has built in the ability to overwrite the presidential vote.

Your first hurdle is getting any one to name an independent candidate.

Edit: adjusted some wording to be better.

[-] pastabatman@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

I agree with this. But also, this time is the closest to "end of the world" stakes we've had in recent memory. We have a literal criminal, rapist, and fraudster who already tried to overthrow the government once leading the polls.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

2016 called they want their gaslighting back. Trump isn't the final form of Fascism. He's getting close but he ain't it.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Is that a 3rd option in a first past the post system?

Hmmmm… what could be the issue there I wonder.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

The people are the issue not the system

[-] capital@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

There is absolutely an issue with first past the post voting systems. And frankly I think you know what the problems are.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

That people are so desperate to keep it in place.

FTFP is never going go away if you keep voting for it lol.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

How surprising. A comment meant to discourage voting.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

Vote for something different than the ftfp parties.

[-] pingveno@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago

That's not how it works. As long as FPTP exists, it will lock us into two parties. We have had multiple party systems that all demonstrated this principle. Some places are experimenting with alternatives on the state and local level, but it will take time.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

You’ve already got one response to this which is correct. I want to add to it to help explain how FPTP voting systems result in a 2 party system and simply voting for another party does not solve the issue.

But first you’re either aware of the problem and want to encourage people to vote third party while pretending not to know how the system works or you’re actually just ignorant to the issue.

I don’t normally like video links in discussions like this but this one is especially good and is only 6.5 mins.

https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

you’re either aware of the problem and want to encourage people to vote third party while pretending not to know how the system works or you’re actually just ignorant to the issu

false dichotomy

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

FPTP voting systems result in a 2 party system and simply voting for another party does not solve the issue.

this isn't an immutable natural law.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

Your video does not explain how voting Democrat is going to fix the FTFP system.

People that don't understand politics have a better understanding than people that have been frog-boiled into voting for a Genocidal Geriatric.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

The presidential vote isn’t where we fix the voting system. We have to work in the system we have. It’s just reality.

My assessment of you hasn’t changed - you’re either completely ignorant or want Biden voters to change to third party to help Trump.

Every interaction with you has a similar quality. I’m never sure if you’re just this stupid or if you know exactly what you’re doing.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The presidential vote is where it's fixed. Republicans have already moved to ban other voting types calling them 'too complicated'. Democrats will join them the second their duopoly is endangered.

Just like how they crack down on student protests and block ballot access for third parties, Democrats have no standards either.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

The system exists as it is…. I don’t know any other way to say this. FPTP has a spoiler problem that you can’t wish away.

I’m not going to vote for a candidate that’s going to get maybe 2-5% of the vote.

I would like to bet you $1000 that either the Dem or Rep candidate will win. If anyone BUT those two win, I would pay you.

If you ACTUALLY believed anyone else will win, you’d take me up on it. What do you say?

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Strange you're including Republican in there. You believe Biden is winning right? So your money should be on Biden and any other winner would make you lose.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

I’m sitting here trying to convince you that FPTP results in a two party system. I’m betting on the two parties.

YOU are the one imagining that can change by simply voting 3rd party.

So, you down for a bet or what?

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

If Biden isn't winning what's the point of voting for him?

[-] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

He is one of two possibilities.

And you’re not going to bet because you know it too.

And now we know you’re not ignorant to this fact. You’re encouraging 3rs party votes knowing very well they will not win.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

No Biden is zero of one possibility.

There's no way he's going to beat Trump.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

I’m glad we finally got to you admitting 3rd parties won’t win.

Thanks.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

I'm glad we finally got you admitting that Biden wont win.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Linkerbaan logic:

3rd parties who are lucky to get 5% of the vote can win.

Biden, who won against Trump last time cannot win.

Lol

[-] Hirom@beehaw.org 11 points 6 months ago

Tradition and inertia.

The USA is proud to have the oldest and longest-standing written constitution. The fact it hasn't been rewriteen in a long time help explain why there's still an electoral college, slavery for prisoners (13th amendements), and weak regulation of campaign finance.

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago

Oldest active constitution is San Marino.

[-] Hirom@beehaw.org 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

That's interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.

My point is having a very old constitution isn't much of a boast if keeping it as-is causes political issues.

[-] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 months ago

Presumably what the other commenter was referring to is the US having the oldest codified constitution

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago

Which is honestly meaningless but very convenient for US narrations. There were also older de facto constitutions, which are usually forgotten like the Henrician Articles of P-L Commonwealth. US constitution is famous because it was the one which was loudly proclaimed and imitated later.

[-] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 months ago
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
955 points (91.8% liked)

Memes

45915 readers
1121 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS