this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
807 points (88.9% liked)

Comic Strips

12716 readers
3506 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nothingcorporate@lemmy.today 83 points 4 days ago (60 children)

3rd party voters didn't swing a single swing state. That is a demonstrable fact. It's time to stop punching down.

[–] TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world 78 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (7 children)

People will, in a single breath, tell people to exercise their right to vote in democracy and also that voting for the person/party that best represents them is wrong if it's not a Big Party.

[–] einkorn 31 points 4 days ago (4 children)

The issue in the US is that it IS against your political interests to vote for anyone but the least bad option.

The first past the post system simply doesn't allow for a diverse political landscape.

[–] NeuronautML@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Let's be honest here, while the first past the post system is conducive to a 2 party dupoly, many countries around the world use it and they don't have it nearly as bad as the US. The real issue in the US is the first past the post system coupled together with the relic of the industrial age that is the Electoral College, which expands all the shortcomings of the first past the post system to a state level and eventually to the district level for the senate elections.

Many countries in Europe use the D'Hondt method of proportional distribution of senate/assembly votes according to the national election results, which more directly represents the will of the people and reduces issues of swing state strategic voting. You simply can't have equal standing of every state simultaneously with proportional representation of the will of the citizens due to the population differences. In order to have both, you'd have to redraw states so that they have similar population sizes. You either make some people's votes worth less or some states' votes worth less. In the case of the US, some people's votes, mainly in highly populated centers, are worth less than votes from rural areas in order to preserve state parity, if i understand correctly.

So in sum it's the first past the post, the electoral college and the senatorial system. The whole jig is rigged so that Democrats and Republicans are artificially always toe to toe more or less equally in a permanent stalemate. Over time this has created stark divisions in the US society. There are republican newspapers and democrat newspapers. Republican culture and democrat culture. There are even people who only want to date republican or democrat. Even this post is a manifestation of the ridiculousness of the US political system, by shaming the people who refuse to participate in this blue or red theater of politics, calling their preferred choice a "wasted vote". To anyone not in the US, it is just absolutely a ludicrous disrespect of political plurality to call someone's vote "wasted". People vote for who they want to vote.

Keeping people in this sisyphean hamster wheel of politics is the point, which is why some states aren't even given representation lest the jig runs amok. Historically, preserving the jig has always been paramount to the US political elite, demonstrated, for instance, by the pre civil war one state democrat-one state republican equal division. In the post civil war era, states weren't given statehood if they were going to threaten the permanent democratic-republican balance that's so important in the US.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago

Maybe it's a garbage system concocted by literal slave masters?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kernelle@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Usually in a democracy the people are represented by parties which they align most with. In my country I can vote for one of seven, which get proportionally represented by a number of seats in parliament. The winning party rarely has more than 50% of the vote, if they do, all the losing parties will become the opposition, and if they don't they have to combine with another party to have at least 50% of the votes. This assures that the winning party or coalition still has to negotiate their position and decisions every single day. If one party would want the power the current administration in the US has they would probably need 80 or 90% of the votes.

Is it complicated? Yes. Does it make sure the people are represented? Also yes.

In the US if a state votes 51% one way, 100% of the electoral votes go to that party, causing a reality where a party could get less than a majority vote and still win. This alone is proof that the people are not fairly represented and isn't a fair democracy. In local elections you'll have a much more nuanced choice but at a federal level it's antiquated to say the least.

I will say that in a fair democracy, you should vote for your representative, in the US you have no such choice. Be it by living in one state counts as more than another, or the fact that a third party has little to no representation post election.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Just as a side note, those models are not invulnerable to manipulation. In my country it's the same, but the central government is ruling from one of the flimsiest coalition governments, with the same lack of power that goes along that dumbasses still claim they are solely responsible for. The opposition claims they 'won' because they got more votes than any other party (which should have also made it easier for them to form their coalition and they weren't able to) and now it is getting so bad and stupid (and troll factory brigaded) that people getting convinced by the rhetoric are trying to pass off the US electoral system as a success story.

It provides more representation, but it does not provide infallibility. I think we have the technology today to do considerably better than what we had several centuries back - in fact, to a large extent we could be voting ourselves on key issues instead of letting it fall back to representatives and false promises if we wanted to. The biggest problem isn't that people in a democracy aren't on equal grounds when grasping different issues and yet they can be radicalized to vote out of rhetoric more than those who would and should be more informed. I think we could have better democracies if we shifted to meritocracies, where you could vote on issues only if you certify you were more informed and the history, reality, and minutiae that govern those issues through exams. But that would also create a system that could be gamed.

Any system can be corrupt, and in democracies it's not just the political candidates but society as a whole when it becomes complacent, ignorant, yet loud and willing to break the system for those that manipulate then into doing it.

[–] kernelle@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Yea, and I would never claim it's perfect, there are no perfect systems. But one of the most powerful nations being that vulnerable to manipulation is something to witness.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

The liberal deer will never be mature enough for that reality.

load more comments (58 replies)