this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
133 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10176 readers
82 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Only because the Democrats have contributed to support a failed and broken system because it sometimes kept them in power.
Conservatives have been openly stating their goals for the last hundred years all the Democrats had to do was stop supporting the status quo.
ugh. I don't get where this comes from. You think people should sign up under a stystem and run for office under a system and then not support and try and make that system as best it can be from within the system. You want revolution then revolt but if your in a democracy vote for the best option and that includes the options for the option (primaries) and if you can try and be an option if you will do a better job and making the best of the system. You want to toss our the system and start anew, well then revolt.
not really. reagan over carter. bush over gore, bush over heart, trump over hilary. We went with the worst option plenty. Problem is we are a democracy and not everyone views the best option is the same. Many of those races were extremely close when the worse option won (hanging chads). Sure we would not be perfect but if those races had went the other way because of the best worst option having more support it we would be way better off today and its possible the worst worst option would find it had to be a bit better which might have pushed the best worst to be a bit better to. What has happened is the worst worst finds they can just be worse and worse because that just turns off folks from seeking better and buy into the, they are all the same, fud.
The dems though are the people who vote in the primary and work with their local chapters. Anyone can improve the canidate pool. The dems win some times though while the non dem liberals have never defeated a republican canidate. They just bitch about the innefective job the dems do while not getting the job done themselves.
Even on the local level, Democrats will attack you and shun you if you don't share their specific neolib agenda. I tried a couple times to get involved but if they find out you're too progressive they'll freak tf out about how they need people "serious about making change" or whatever and start pushing you out.
Like bro I just wanted to help make copies or wtfever you do here but OK I'll go home lol
I think the biggest problem with the US system is the FPTP thing, the winner takes all.
This always leads to two parties that become pure enemies because of the zero-sum game that ensues. A loss for one is a win for the other, there is no incentive to collaborate.
Our coalition system is not perfect because it often causes very uncomfortable coalitions of parties not well suited. But at least it doesn't feel like a stalemate.
Why would they stop when the point of the party is status quo?
That's my point, and that's why democracy is at risk.
This comment betrays historical ignorance.
How so?