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

Comic Strips

12716 readers
3446 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 25 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I'll never understand why people refuse to blame the powerful rich people running the Democrats for not drawing people in with good leftist policy.

[–] Test_Tickles@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Because leftist policy doesn't bring anyone to the polls other than the right. Only 30% of eligible voters bothered to show up to polls and vote for a black/Indian woman over a Hitler wannabe. That means that a full 70% of eligible voters said they were fine with, or were actively choosing, a child raping felon, who outright said he wanted to execute anyone who ever opposed him and praised Hitler's generals.
You can god damn well bet that the people running the Democratic party learned a lesson, and that lesson is that so called liberals will always come up with an excuse not to vote no matter how dire the situation, but conservatives will show up even for made up shit that has been repeatedly proven to be wrong.
And if you thought the Dems were conservative before... well just wait and see how much farther right they are going to go now chasing the only votes that bother to show up to vote.

[–] naticus@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

First mistake is believing Democrats are leftist. They're also right of moderate, but not quite as right as Republicans. Libertarians are also not really on the spectrum as we know it either. We have no liberal parties that are capable of making a difference.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

"Libertarians" are absolutely on a simple right/left scale, and it's the right.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dan@upvote.au 20 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (11 children)

I don't understand why the USA doesn't use preferential voting like Australia does: https://www.chickennation.com/voting/

Instead of just picking one candidate/party, you number them based on your preferences. First all the #1 votes are counted. If no party gets the majority (over 50%) of votes, the party with the least number of votes is removed, and for everyone that voted for them, their #2 votes are used. Repeat until someone wins.

Independents (what you call "third-party" in the USA) can win, and any party that gets over 4% of the #1 votes gets election funding from the government (a fixed amount per vote).

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 22 points 3 days ago

Because both of the major parties benefit from excluding the competition.

It's kind of like, if your car won't start, you need to take it to a mechanic, but because it won't start, you can't drive it to the mechanic. We need to change how our elections work because FPTP prevents us from implementing the policies we want, but it's precisely because it prevents us from implementing the policies we want that we're unable to change it. It's a catch-22.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 18 points 3 days ago

We're too corrupt to allow the competition :)

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago

There's a movement for that, but it's been moving very slow.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 90 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago

google: how do I change my vote?

[–] 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kernelle@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago (2 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
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)
[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 29 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Oh I'm sure the comments on this post will be nice and calm

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 50 points 4 days ago (13 children)

Well election is over, the time to start building up a third party is NOW

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 56 points 4 days ago (38 children)

Its so hilarious how this ridiculously toxic culture around blaming third party was developed, worked on for months, and then when it came time, the impact of third parties was so utterly irrelevant as to be laughable.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days ago

There's gotta be some way to blame the left for Trump winning. Look harder!

load more comments (37 replies)
[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 26 points 4 days ago

The last panel should be the deer bumming around on the couch instead of voting, with some kind of line like "the trees just don't excite me'.

load more comments
view more: next ›