Republicans are evil but Democrats are only less evil
Republicans are evil but Democrats are only less evil
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't understand why people who think this don't advocate for ranked choice voting. Seems like it would solve this issue, right?
It doesn't. There are plenty of bourgeois democracies that don't use FPTP for all their voting: Japan, Australia, South Korea for some of their elections. Doesn't make a difference (except it might make the bribery a bit more expensive, since you have to buy off more political parties than just two).
The fundamental problem is capital standing above political power. If it does so, then no amount of alternative voting systems can fix the issue. Socialism is the only answer.
Even if it would, how would it ever get passed when the people who would need to pass it are the ones who are only in office because the system works the way it currently does?
This is just a recurring theme I've found when talking with liberals. They like to think about and suggest all sorts of policy ideas as though all we're missing are some smart ideas nobody has thought of. It's one thing to say we should have this, but it's another to have any idea of how it'd be possible to do. Since they have no actual analysis of the system, they'll just turn around and tell you to vote or call your representative. "We should get money out of politics!" "Yeah, well we checked with the people giving us money and they said no. So..."
I imagine it wouldn't be difficult at least at the primary level. The same party has the power and they can get rid of less desirable candidates like Fetterman.
They won't allow it because they'll lose power with ranked choice.
You have a few options for enacting ranked choice voting at the national level:
-
Win hundreds, possibly thousands, of state-level House and Senate seats with the largest grass roots voter mobilization ever seen in the US to, a) enact legislation in all 50 states or b) ratify an amendment to the constitution, that mandates it.
-
Kill enough republicans in a national civil war to make sure that when elections happen, there aren't enough republicans left to win an election, then enact the above.
-
Overthrow the entire US government in a much bloodier national coup and set up whatever government you want.
Kill enough republicans in a national civil war
And democrats, too. Don't pretend they're not just as responsible for keeping fptp voting, their party depends on it. If you don't believe me, look into how coordinated the GOP and Democrats were when suing PSL and the Green party to keep them off several state ballots (and severely whittle down their grassroots funds with corporate-money lawfare). Spoiler: there was no overlap.
It's one party, two wings.
It isn't, but I suppose if you hang out in an echo chamber long enough you'll believe anything.
What echo chamber are you talking about? Existing on the English-speaking internet at all is to be in a pro-US echo chamber, Leftists carving out little enclaves for themselves to discuss topics with other leftists doesn't insulate them from the overwhelming majority of their existence.
-
No, RCV wouldn't. The fundamental problem of electoral politics being a game between factions pre-approved by the bourgeoisie won't change, there are even safeguards preventing unwanted change that losing parties and government branches can pull in the rare event a worker party won.
It's the perfect carrot, it won't get passed nor would it change much.
Even though RCV improves representation by only like 3%-6%. it's still an improvement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepresentWomen#Ranked_Choice_Voting
Sure, I won't make the claim that it's a bad thing over FPTP. My argument is that focusing on Electoral Reform is wasted energy when it is ultimately easier to get compehensive change through via Revolution, and I'd argue Revolution is still required regardless.
I do advocate for it, I'm a proud member of the Forward Party.