this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
193 points (91.8% liked)

politics

19047 readers
3926 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] takeheart@lemmy.world 100 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Let us hope that one day the US, or any democracy for that matter, will come together to implement ranked choice voting.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 50 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Until that day, let’s hope people recognize that there really are only two votes that will end up counting. I still regret voting for Nader when Bush stole the election in 2000.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Let’s also hope that people realize voters who don’t vote far outnumber third-party voters.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

There should be some improved turnout in the 18-24 range now that abortion and marijuana are on the ballot in several states this November.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What you wrote is a simplification and it's also wrong in general. For people who don't live in swing states, one vote more or less isn't going to change the election. This is especially true if you're in an obvious minority in your own state.

Also, the two established parties realize that people think what you think, and that gives them an excuse not to represent their base. The term used back in Bill Clinton's days was "triangulation". One of the ways of keeping presidential candidates honest is to vote for third parties if necessary.

Finally, it's important to keep in mind that the stance you have here is something that many of us have heard for decades.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago

And it's all still true, as long as we have a voting system that is essentially actively detrimental to yourself if you try to express anything other than R or D on the voting ballot.

[–] CopernicusQwark@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

or any democracy for that matter

Australia sends its regards.

It is really nice knowing that I can safely vote for our "green" party without risking our conservative party getting in because the centre-left party loses too many votes.

Also, voting being mandatory (and very accessible) and on a Sunday for federal elections is such a game changer for ensuring participation.

Hopefully you guys can get reforms in at some point.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Low voter turnout benefits the Republican Party in the US because conservatives are more consistent voters. Reform requires 60 votes in the Senate out of 100. That makes it almost impossible because one of the major parties is not interested in reform.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Neither of the major parties is interested in a reform.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think most Democrats are interested in reform that would boost turnout. Higher turnout is usually good for Democratic candidates.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but that is not the same as allowing another parties to take their votes that do turn out.

Just look around here on lemmy, the democrats are milking the "we are the only alternative to hate and bigotry" for everything it is worth. I expect they would not even keep half their voters if a better alternative to voting republican existed.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That would take moving to a system like in most European countries where smaller parties are viable in coalitions. Not gonna happen anytime soon.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Most countries with presidential systems have two-round voting which is effectively very close to ranked choice voting. That’s why e.g. Macron’s new party could immediately win the presidency.

[–] lunarul@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They also count one vote as one vote instead of this electoral college BS

[–] 11111one11111@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

I know it's a flawed system but how else would you ensure everyone of our 300 million citizens are properly represented? I also recognize the preverse exploitation the EC allows but without it you would have every state voting whichever candidate the lagest Metropolitan region votes. The only presidential election that NY state ever voted republican for was the a Regan landslide which wasn't even a testament to the victor. It was a result of the challenging candidate not winning a single fucking district other than his own and the district for his home town iirc. Yes a lot can be said for the benefits of not having current Republicans in office but this country never stays still very long and there is no way of knowing 10-20 years from now that the democrats won't evolve into a super toxic party. Which without the EC would bind us to the scenario I explained above where we would have no escape.