🏳️🌈🖖🏽
I remember the 2000 Election. There were enough votes for Ralph Nader to hand the election to George W. Bush.
I remember the 2016 Election. There were enough votes for Jill Stein to hand the election to Donald Trump.
In 2024 the Green Party is running Cornell West. Let’s not repeat this history, friends
Your vote is not a marriage. You’re not choosing a life partner. It’s a chess move for what’s best for the country and the world.
🇳🇱
Thats a very short sighted view... the way I see it getting a higher vote count for third parties, gives people hope third parties can win, and can break the 2-party system if that trend is carried out... breaking the two-party system is a FAR more promising goal than it is to have one of two shitty people picked year after year to run this country.
It also increases the likelihood that no candidate will gain 270 electoral votes in the case of the Presidential.
For that case, I recommend we follow the constitution and vote for electors, NOT presidential candidates. As it is, you have to work pretty hard to even know the name of the electors you are voting for. They are not put on the ballot. It is well worth meeting them.
No it isnt a mathematical consequence (im well aware of what you are talking about).. it is a psychological consequence that can be described by math... which makes it a choice not an invevitablity.
There is a reason first-past-the-post voting has resulted in multiple parties in other countries. Hell even int he USA we have had third parties take over as primary party 8 timesin US history... so plenty of evidence it isnt a mathematical inevitablity.
It would be more accurate to say it returns in sharper changes in the dominance of third parties where they take over in a single election cycle.
@freemo @sdgathman @ambihelical @georgetakei Anyone who cares about democracy should focus on increasing local power and participation and emphasis on local elections. The presidential election is the weakest form of democracy in our country by design. The Constitution makes no mention of a popular presidential election or even the election of electors. The electors are appointed by the states and the states choose to appoint them via elections. Democracy only works locally because, in a large enough group, the sense of collective will and identity becomes so diffuse that it is essentially meaningless, allowing those with access to the mass media to easily manipulate the outcomes through mere memetic repetition.
@mandlebro @freemo @sdgathman @ambihelical @georgetakei Iceland was the only country to refuse bailouts and jail the banksters in 2008. They were small enough for democracy to work.
There is NO fixing the Federal government. It was supposed to be small and limited, and there is no way to put it back there and no way to make democracy work at that scale.
The only interesting question there is what replaces it when it falls in a heap. (Probably a dictatorship.)
@mandlebro @freemo @sdgathman @ambihelical @georgetakei The state legislatures were also supposed to pick their Senators, and could recall them if they didn't represent the state's interests properly. Going to direct election of Senators was a big mistake.
In fact a certain faction keeps pointing out problems and saying the cure is MOAR DEMOCRACY. And every time we get more democracy, the problems get worse.
Almost like pure democracy IS the problem.
It has never worked on a large scale.
Communism fails on a large scale.
Capitalism fails on a large scale.
It's almost like the problem is the large scale.
"Spread out across the earth" - Genesis 9:7
https://biblehub.com/genesis/9-7.htm
@mandlebro
I generally agree with that. I'd even go one further and say that votes for congress means more than the president as well.
@sdgathman @ambihelical @georgetakei