You're viewing a single thread.
Good thing the party learn d their lesson and stopped running uncharismatic elderly moderates with terrible approval ratings...
Right?
How the fuck did they go from Obama to Hillary to this?
They didn't, they TRIED to run Hillary in 2008. Obama was the party outsider who won by a tiny margin.
And then the Clinton supporters lost their shit and protested it, using the same sort of rhetoric Bernie supporters used eight years later.
The only people who dont vote for the least bad option are the people who have the luxary not to.
We gotta get us some Approval Voting so people can vote for their true favorite without worrying if it'll accidentally give them a worse election result.
I agree, until that happens though, all of us are required to choose the least bad option.
For sure, for sure.
Is this ever gonna happen, though? I see it like guaranteed under every single social media post that complains about how we don't have a functional system and while I agree that fptp as a system is bad and horrible, it almost feels like a red herring at this point because it has such a low chance of ever being changed as each party in power, and any party that theoretically ever able to take power, would not stand to benefit from alternative voting. It's like prison reform or free healthcare or making weed legal or any number of other things that has high levels of voter approval but conveniently never happen because it's not in the best interest of the party, except this one is possibly more niche and easier to spread misinformation about.
Like I dunno, what's the M.O. on getting this done? Get it approved in a couple local elections and then just hope it bubbles up from there? I know in oregon there's supposed to be some referendum on it, but I kind of doubt it's going to pass even though I'm gonna vote for it. I seriously don't see it happening, at least on a federal level, without some extremely serious reform that basically completely reworks how the government currently functions.
Ranked choice voting has already been adopted for state elections in multiple states.
You're thinking of a different voting method, but the answer is that you have to be an organizing member of the change you want to see. When Fargo switched to approval it was because a single person decided "fuck it, I'm gonna make this happen." They built a team of volunteers and forced through a referendum, and ran a campaign to advertise and support it.
We're advocating to take away power from those who have it. They will never allow it voluntarily, you have to make it happen.
And are selfish fucks
Edit: blaming others for not showing up to your uninterested non beneficial vote when no one is a hedgemony least of all voters. And refusing to try different tactics cause what if effort has to be applied and it feels pointless or you lose despite trying.
What a nice excuse for losing.
How is that an excuse?
Blaming people for not wanting to pick a lesser bad option. Blaming it on the people who aren't paying as much attention and don't see it as a "good" option to take the time to go fight against a system that doesn't want people to vote at all.
That excuse where you pass the buck to other people despite there being action that can be done on the party side to inspire voters instead of just blame them for shortcomings.
If you play chess but only move a piece every 3rd turn and refuse to accept the opponent is now playing boxing chess instead of playing back or pushing back on the rules you are just making excuses.
I'm not blaming them for not voting, I am pointing out the only people who don't are the ones who have the luxary to not, the ones who believe whatever outcome won't actually affect them.
If you feel my statement applies to you, than perhaps it does, but if complaining that you get called a fair-weathered believer in democracy is your biggest issue, it kind of proves my point, does it not?
You aren't like us.
The only people who dont vote for the least bad option are the people who have the luxary not to.
the only people who don't are the ones who have the luxary to not
Yeah people have other reasons to not vote. You are coming from a really
differententitled place if you think that's the only reason people don't vote.You are making broad sweeping assumptions that put blame on others only. That's fucked up. It's not about me or you but everyone in the room.
Give me a reason somebody would choose to not vote against fascism not rooted in luxary.
Ok I do have to ask you know it's luxury right? No judgement but English your first language?
And people the average person that has never left their state and can't afford anything nice other than to sleep. Does not see it that way.
They can be literally working to stay alive. Trying to keep up with costs of existence, and election is not a holiday it's a working day and most employees aren't allowing you off to vote. Yes, there are workarounds and such but they are not easy to circumnavigate and in some states straight up not exist.
You are asking people who see no better existence that will work either way but probably suffer more to battle upstream against lack of polling places, options and even a good choice to go out or you will blame them for not doing enough work.
That is privilege of not knowing a life other than your own.
Its interesting that I talked about people choosing to not vote, and you decided to respond instead with giving examples of people who are being deprived of that ability to vote.
What do you think is the cause of the disconnect between what you and I are talking about?
If your want people to vote for you give them someone they can stomach. Clinton is a piece of shit and Biden is a zionist with dementia.
If somebody prefers the same genocide under Trump over Biden, there is nothing anybody can to say to them that will change their mind.
If somebody prefers a genocide against trans people in America, and the imprisonment and forced labor of poor people in America, over Biden, that is between them and their God.
But please, keep pretending you are fighting for Palestine when you aren't even fighting for your own home.
It's "luxury"
You still understood the point being made, that's incredible!
It is kind of incredible, I normally don't take people seriously who can't spell.
And I don't take people seriously if they are incapable of disagreeing with a point made.
I'm not addressing your point, just your typo. What an odd thing to say.
You joined a conversation to bring nothing of value then? I was right to not take you seriously.
You'll be slightly more effective at sounding persuasive the next time you post something if that post doesn't include obvious spelling errors. The choice to get offended at a simple correction and have this whole exchange was yours.
No no no, you don't understand, you can only ever be critical of one thing at a time, so either you don't care about people not voting or you think every candidate and campaign the Democratic party has ever run was flawless, you have to pick one or the other /s