I'm not American but I probably would have voted Democrat if I was.
However, Democrats who are more mad at leftists voting third party than they're mad at republicans or their own fucking party that simply could not be bothered to stop bombing children to gain the left-wing vote: Go fuck yourselves.
Dividing the left wouldn't matter if we used a more representative voting system. One that gave people the freedom to vote how they want and still have their vote count if their preference didn't win. Voters should be able to transfer their vote how they wish and stay represented. To have their vote count no matter what.
Why don't blue states switch away from First-past-the-post voting? Republicans aren't in power, they could easily make this change. Don't they believe in democracy? Or do prefer this undemocratic hostage situation that hands the republicans power repeatedly?
Electoral Reform Videos
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems
Alternative voting systems have in practice been proven useless, whether in South Korea, Japan, Australia, and many other capitalist dictatorship countries that use it. It might make bribery a bit more expensive, since there are more candidates to buy off, and more political advertising necessary, but it hasn't fixed anything.
The root problem is capital standing above political power. And that can't be undone using it's own platform.
They're useless because the capital powers that be actively try to misinform the public on preferential voting (As part of a larger attack on education to keep a complicit population)
If I had a dollar every time I heard someone tell me I'm throwing away my vote for preferencing a minor party that has no hope of winning I'd probably have enough money to bribe a politician into making some decent fucking policy
You're right that it doesn't solve much but the two party system in the US is particularly terrible. Fundamental change is a lot harder to achieve than changing voting systems and even with a socialist state we'd want one of these, so I think there's no point opposing it even if it isn't a panacea
Electoral reform not only doesn't address root causes, it doesn't even treat the symptoms. It hasn't prevented australia or japan from having far right governments, hasn't returned land to indigenous peoples, hasn't done anything against inequality, hasn't empowered poorer peoples. All it does is make the political bribery slightly more expensive.
At a deeper level, representative elections always result in an oligarchy. The wealthy / economically dominant classes are the only ones who have enough money / prestige to finance their campaigns and win the popularity contest. It makes any political system based on elections nothing more than political theatre.
This is basic stuff even the ancient greeks knew, and communists learned through trial and error, yet liberals in the 21st century can't wrap their heads around it.
Agreed. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. Even if it ONLY makes bribery more expensive, is that not a good thing?
"you're hurting your cause!!" whines liberal who hates both you and your cause
In their moral justification, the argument of the lesser evil has played a prominent role. If you are confronted with two evils, the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Its weakness has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget quickly that they chose evil.
-Hannah Arendt
This is such a rigid and literal way of thinking. This mentality explicitly idealizes and romanticizes black and white thinking. Life has shades of gray, no matter how much you wish it was as simple as literal Good versus Evil
Life has shades of gray is usually said by those who are 100% evil
Shades of gray dont exist irl. There's humans, and there's the inhuman creatures who genocide humans
