no one fucking told me about states banning RCV during all that yapping on here about how i should VOTE THIRD PARTY OR ELSE IM COMPLICIT in the DNCs CRIMES
it may or may not be joever, very blackpilled at this moment
edit it’s actually 10 states. 5 in the past two months.
It’s a failed democratic republic that’s sliding into fascism.
fascism is an amoral slide tackle to democratic republics
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
Union busting
Rolling back regulations
The list goes on…
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.
Those things are evil but I don’t see how they’re anti-democratic.
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.
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.
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.
Look at what I was replying to. It specifically mentioned union busting, deregulation, and nothing else.
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). 😉
Forgot to add:
- The Electoral College
- Congressional apportionment
- The Senate
thanks i made this in a rush and definitely could have put more details :)
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
Didn’t work in 2016…
it’s just not used for that reason
Yeah, some where along the line they gained party loyalty
Trump is a Russian asset
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.
There’s another option: at least half of America is incredibly ignorant about their candidate.
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.
Yeah, imagine…
It OBVIOUSLY doesn’t work by your own definition
Maybe you were being sarcastic
A constiutional monarch is a better defence against that
Absolutely. The problem with modern politicians is that they simply don’t own enough real estate.
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
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.
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.
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.
States have banned ranked choice voting??? wtf why???
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.
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.
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.
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.
To paraphrase Reservoir Dogs: Senator Brown sounds an awful lot like Senator Shit…
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.
Because it’s progress. Shockingly, the five states that have banned it are red.
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.
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.
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.
They’re banning it because it’s confusing. We are literally too stupid to have a representative government.
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.
What is “anti-electoral disinformation”
“don’t vote because it makes you complicit in your oppression” and similar
Ah, gotcha. Thanks.
that’s true though. do you have any examples that are actually misinformation?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
does he have anti-electoral misinformation i should be on the lookout for? why bring him up?
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!
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
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
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
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.
This. Thinking that strategic way got them into this mess in the first place
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.
if the choice is blue fascists or red fascists, it’s no choice at all.
I’m afraid to tell you that you’re right
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
And just lopping all that off might just kill us. We would die clean though
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.
a broken clock something something, getting to the right conclusion by the wrong means something something…
eeeyy macarena
Ay
