Originally Posted By u/Buster_xx At 2025-06-11 07:47:11 AM | Source


  • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 days ago

    Maybe think about implementing proportional representation if you hate 2 big parties so much. Kamala Harris is leagues of Donald Trump and you’re trolling if you think they’re the same…

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Nobody said they are the same, and you’re trolling if you think they did. The above is spot on correct.

      • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        The comment encourages not voting with “vote blue no matter who”

        That’s Implying they think both parties are “just as bad”

        It’s the worst take anarchists have. You use every tool in the box not completely abandoned an important one such as voting ceding all ground to maga candidates playing right into the hands of Trump.

        You can demand for electoral reform, read independent journalism, protest, support unions, join cooperatives and only buy from companies that don’t contribute to political parties just as a few listed examples.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 days ago

          VBNMW is cringe to a whole lot more people than just “anarchists”. It doesn’t just speak to voter participation, it speaks to a sense of entitlement that Democratic politicians have. It reminds me of Hillary’s “It’s her turn” slogan.

          Democrats are, in almost every situation, the better choice. Political junkies know that, but most people aren’t political junkies. We criticize the Democratic sense of entitlement because we know how it comes off to regular voters. It’s political malpractice to constantly display that kind of entitlement. That slogan needs to die.

          • Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            First-past-the-post is litterally the problem you have with American democracy, it’s intentionally designed to only work for 2 competitors in an election race.

            You’re not going to have a better democrat party unless you force them to face actual competition with elections under the single-transferable vote they would quickly improve their act facing small parties and independents winning seats. Portland uses this system already for their elections.

            Americans need to stop accepting just 2 choices when they deserve more and better.

            • Tinidril@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              Absolutely true and entirely useless on a national scale right now. FPTP is what we have and it’s the system in which we must elect candidates who will move us to a better system. Primaries are where the game has to be played right now, and for that we need to kill the notion that loyal Democrats shouldn’t criticize sitting Democrats.

              Portland is not politically typical. It can be a model, but it has to be a model for political culture before it can be a model for how to enact a better voting system.

            • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              with elections under the single-transferable vote

              While FPTP is trash, that system is kinda trash, too: if a candidate would beat all others 1-on-1 (Condorcet winner), then should that candidate win? Not according to single transferable vote/instant run-off.

              Example
              • A > B > C: 2
              • C > B > A: 2
              • B > C > A: 1

              Who wins according to instant run-off? C. Who wins against every opponent 1-on-1? B.

              Other methods also fail.

              There are better methods: this nice table compares voting methods by a wide range of properties.