this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
472 points (78.0% liked)

Memes

45899 readers
1718 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (4 children)

With no scale this is absolutely meaningless

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 86 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Ah yes, so the best option is to not vote and let them succeed unimpeded.

I'm all for voting for a better candidate, but we have a broken 2 party system, and it very much is if you don't vote for one of the two main parties, you are pretty much just not voting at all.

I don't vote for this person. I'm voting against that person.

[–] The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Dems have been nothing but a doormat for the last 30 years, the party of complicity. I'm absolutely positive they've been playing the dupe and moving the US further to the right all the while playing the victim.

Could have fixed the electoral college but didn't. Could have codified abortion into the constitution but didn't. Could have filled RBGs supreme court seat without Senate confirmation regardless of the pearl clutching, but didn't. Could have put pressure on the justice department to get their investigation done with to get the trial for Trump for treason at least started....but fuck me, they didn't.... seriously- they couldn't put a case together in 3 years?????

Could have, should have, would have. Fucking useless.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 20 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I agree, but also stand by my point. In a horrible 2 party system, they're simply "not conservative", and so I'm forced to vote for them. That being said, Bernie should have won.

[–] The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org 23 points 1 week ago

Bernie got railroaded.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

In my country we stopped voting the socdem party, because they betrayed the workers. From one election to the next they lost like half the votes.

For 4 years the conservative party ruled. But after that the socdem change their politics we voted them again and had had a fairly leftist government for the last year.

They are slacking again so I plan not to vote next election, hoping thar more people get the memo, they sink again in votes and sit to think on why people felt betrayed, and change for the better.

4 years of conservative party were worthy giving that after the socdems turned left again we conquer a lot of things that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise if we would have keep on voting their moderate centrist version.

We also voted for third parties when they said that it was throwing your vote away, and the other party got almost the same votes as the socdems(too bad they were not that good once they sat on office). My point is that courage is needed to make a change.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 65 points 1 week ago

also known as

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 44 points 1 week ago (48 children)

No.

Look at how the system actually works. There are two choices. Both candidates have to compete for all the people who vote. If you sit out the election that doesn't mean either candidate will try to get your vote; they'll ignore you and go after the people who do vote.

Someone else came up with this analogy. It's like the trolley problem except the there's a third option. The third choice is to throw the switch to "Neither," but "Neither" isn't connected and the trolley kills someone anyway.

[–] Belgdore@lemm.ee 24 points 1 week ago

Or as Rush put it, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My friend, what you wrote totally ignores the passage of time. Everything you wrote is true if we only look at one election, and none of it is true if we consider the passage of time and how pressure operates. If the political party is not getting votes, if all of their candidates are losing, either they will disband or they will find different policies to push.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (46 replies)
[–] gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago
[–] aliceblossom@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (3 children)

There is a better way! Ranked choice voting means no more voting for the lesser of two evils. Look into fo yourselves and others - vote to change the voting systems near you!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 31 points 1 week ago (23 children)

I feel as though there's a significant amount of extra info that isn't strictly conveyed here.

The core issue is that you only have 2 real options in america, third parties may as well not exist. So, come election time, your harm reduction option is to vote for the least evil party.

But that's not the way to solve the issue, and neither is abstaining or voting third party, IMO. The way to solve the issue happens between votes. Picketing, protesting, demonstrating, taking action, making noise. You won't solve the broken 2 party system at election time. But you do have to actually get out and take action, not just say that you will and keep letting the overton window shift right.

(Take with a pinch of salt because I'm not american)

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (58 children)

OK, what else do you suggest? Not voting? That just speeds the process up. Voting for the small but much better option? In a FPTP voting system (like the American one that I assume you're talking about), the spoiler effect means that's as good as not voting.

This is my issue with the leftist community in general, and especially the ml group. Because of idealism, they seem to ask for something that doesn't exist and not accept anything else.

load more comments (58 replies)
[–] Venat0r@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago

*Long term effects of a broken 2 party voting system...

FTFY

[–] WeUnite@lemm.ee 22 points 1 week ago (10 children)

This is a lie. People just spread this to trick you into not voting so the Republicans win.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Also the lesser evil kills all enthousiam and loses the election.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Your caption totally doesn't match these graphs.

'The lesser evil' might as well be left (leaning) from the majorities POV. In that case the shift would be to the left. And furthermore you seem to be assuming that this shift continues because you keep voting for the 'lesser evil'?

I think that's contradictory. Voting for someone is telling them you like their course best. Why would they change their course if they are already getting the votes? (Or lead the polls?) They would only do so to capture another parties audience - and only if their own ideas are not popular (enough) already. So the contrary is true: Parties tend towards whoever is getting more votes. This is only logical, because that's ultimately what they need.

Having to vote for a 'lesser evil' just means your system is broken, corrupt, or you feel like you have no other option. In functioning democratic systems, you will see fluctuations based on the general sentiment towards current topics. What's currently going on tends to have a much more significant impact on voters than any ideals.

To give you a very simplistic example: Economy bad -> People vote for guy who (they think) will fix it. This was a big factor in Trumps victory. (And there are probably also more racist then you think.)

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 20 points 1 week ago (6 children)

The short term effect of voting for the "greater evil" (or not voting at all): straight to the far, far right.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ChildeHarold@lemm.ee 19 points 1 week ago (13 children)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (11 children)

Let’s see your tune in 4 years lmao all you fuckwits who stayed home did was force everyone to live under the authoritarians right now. You sacrificed marginalized groups because of a complete lack of perspective and selfish bullshit.

You have four years every year to push for candidates you like. Local and state offices. So many opportunities to volunteer and donate. Then you all show up having done NOTHING during that time, strolling up in the general election endlessly complaining and moaning. I’m so fucking sick of it.

Change takes work and time. Sitting around whining online doing nothing for 3.5 years then showing up in the general is not putting in the work. It’s being entitled brats.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 17 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Incidentally that's also the effect of not voting for the lesser evil, you can just cut out the two steps in the middle then.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yep, that's why I always vote for the bigger evil.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›