this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
215 points (87.2% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3612 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Really you don't need to read more than one chart:

If you vote for anyone other than Harris, you're voting for Trump:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No most of them started out as monarchies so they cant have parliaments. That would be a change in how the government functions, and that's impossible

Well that's not true at all. Parliamentary monarchies are absolutely a thing, the UK being one.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Awesome, that means how our government functions can be changed to accommodate several parties.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Nobody is saying the US system can't be changed to accommodate third-parties.

What they are saying is that third-parties aren't viable the way things are now.

You can't elect third parties to change the system; the system has to be changed to elect third parties. Until then, voting for a third party is wasting a vote and advocating for others to do so is telling them to vote against the major party that is both more likely to win and also the one that more closely represents their values.

The exception, of course, is if one of the major parties suffers an implosion like the Whigs did in the mid-1800s. But the Dems are more unified than ever and the Republicans are brainwashed by right-wing media, so I don't see that happening any time soon.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You're saying the only way to get rid of the two party system is to continue to exclusively support the two parties

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

And the sooner you swallow that pill, the sooner you'll realize that politics is not about emotions, it about strategy, and voting for third-parties isn't a winning one.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

You say emotions, I say evidence based. With over a century of results of voting exclusively for one of two parties. The result being we're more deeply ingrained in two parties than ever before.

Lets say we vote for democrats again, what are you willing to claim will be different next election with regards to moving past the two party system?

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

evidence-based

And all the evidence shows that, as the US is currently, voting for third-parties hurts you far more by allowing the major party that least represents you to win. You can't claim to adhere to "evidence" if you don't acknowledge that fact.

Also, I'm going to let you in on a little secret: I don't want any of the current third parties to win. None of them are serious beyond being spoilers for the major parties- they don't host voter drives, they don't campaign for local and state elections, they don't do anything for four years then show up and expect to have the same shot as the major parties.

I'm perfectly happy voting for a party to win who agrees with 60% of what I want than getting 0% of what I want, because it's the rational choice to make.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

as the US is currently

This is where we're losing eachother. I dont think youre understanding that I am advocating for changes from how the US is currently.