this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
621 points (87.4% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2105 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  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
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Who is this article for?

It doesn't address the real problem here: That first past the post voting is a broken system and that main party candidates should make more effort to fix this glaring hole in the voting system.

Because fptp is garbage, third parties are little more than a method to undermine a candidates opposition (in the US in 2024 the green party is ironically propped up in part by the republican party)

By leaving out fptp it just sounds like anti democracy drivel.

[–] turtletracks@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I wish we had ranked choice voting, it just makes so much more sense

[–] UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Most all Harris voters agree things need to be changed.

We also agree that NOW is not the time for that. Just, let's make sure the orange man stays out of power first before arguing what to change.

[–] eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's nice dear, you've said this exact same thing since Reagan.

When is the right time?

I'm down for December of this year

[–] stinerman@midwest.social -2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

first past the post voting is a broken system and that main party candidates should make more effort to fix this glaring hole in the voting system.

The Democratic Party would rather lose to the Republican Party than change the rules to allow for a multi-party system.

That aside, the major parties don't want to reform the system they have because it's worked very well for them. Our parties are incredibly old by world standards. The Democrats have been around since the 18th century, and the Republicans have been around since the 1850s.

[–] Statfish@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Some level of election reform will be on the ballot in 9 states this fall. Make sure you vote, if you can!

Also worth noting that these efforts are generally led mainly by democrats, with support from some moderate republicans. In contrast, 10 republican-led state legistatures have passed outright bans on RCV. One of these parties is not like the other!

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4969563/ranked-choice-voting-bans

[–] Drunkpostdisaster@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago

The democrats supported RCV in my state.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

The Democratic Party would rather lose to the Republican Party than change the rules to allow for a multi-party system.

That's a weird false dichotomy. Why are you painting those as the two options?

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The problem is if you believe this entirely then there's no mechanism to affect parties. Which is easy to disprove.

The overarching reality is that the parties are affected by things: culturally there's been a long period (150 years) of slowly unrestricting people with lots of resistance. Then there's also a economic right wing drift for decades, largely along capital accumulation lines.

I buy the idea that the parties are hard to affect but the idea they are impossible to affect seems ahistorical.

[–] Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lol there's definitely a way to affect them.

Two actually.

One is $$$$

The other one you aren't allowed to propose.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

?There's several ways to affect politics

  1. Corruption - largely the higher corruption is the more advocates to lower taxes for their donors. This is driven by capital accumulation.

  2. Bottom up struggles - largely if a number of states do a thing the federal politicians will pick it up. Voting rights, marijuana legalization etc fall into this. Realistically this is probably the way to pick up votes.

  3. Media driven - Trump is primarily influenced this way with scares, fear, bullshit. The last 40 years are driven heavily by media scares funded by right wing billionaires. Factual information sometimes breaks through here: I would argue the obamacare ban on pre-existing conditions was the outcome of a media cycle. Usually these are bad rather than good.

  4. Personal affectations of politicians. Cheney's daughter caused him to be sensible on gay rights, McCain's stance on torture was a result of his time as a POW. George Bush's daddy issues about Iraq lead to millions of people dying. If enough people shoot at trump I do see him passing gun legislation (not encouraging it, just speculation)

[–] Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Indeed politics is a tea kettle in the Lagrange zone between the earth and the moon.

But I was suggesting methods for affecting political parties.