If only there was some kind of proven road map where countries who has been dominated by their ruling elite using the two party trick went on to form a kind of labour movement that forced a third choice on the ruling class…
American shower thoughts
We need to demand approval choice voting. Every time we hear anything about third parties in this country, we need to use it as a launch pad to tall about approval choice voting
You’d need to grow the third party / greens by having them become a viable party in local elections and state elections first. The greens have failed to do that. Which means they have no chance except to spoil the election.
That’s never going to happen
But but, building a real third party from the ground up in local elections and/or changing our voting system from first past the post takes a lot of time and real effort. That’s a lot of hard work. It’s a lot harder than just showing up to one election every 4 years and casting a vote that makes you feel like you’re special and smarter than everyone else.
Yeah, I’ve recently talked with my therapist about this choice between very slow, very hard work and sitting on my butt dreaming. And about the idea that it’s better to avoid action than to act, if I’m not sure I’ll act right. And how it apparently came to me in my teens, when I’ve been doing martial arts for some time, girls would smile at me often, and in general I thought I might be too stupid and happy and there should be something smarter. That ‘smarter’ was, of course, just another teenage idea of being wise and not like everyone else. Fucked up my life for a decade.
By the way, people who’d be removed and theoretical and talk about some imagined third movement created via some magic other than voting - would be called ‘idiots’ in ancient Athens. Because they are on the side of an idea, not real politics. Then it became a rude word.
Any such decision to try and find a smart shortcut, or that it’s better to wait and see how it goes instead of sweating, - are all wrong and are exactly what propaganda works for. Being honest is smarter than being dishonest. And voting for the party most fitting your ideals is smarter than for the lesser evil.
I honestly tried to read and understand this but it really sounds like a bunch of nonsense.
Removed by mod
Tell that to all the people who will be hurt if that protest vote enables someone worse.
Voting for the party that is consciously using the other one as a boogeyman will enable someone worse with no doubt. They are both worse.
And before the actual ballots are being cast, the public opinion sending right signals to Dems would reduce that risk.
Yeah, because only the democrats spread rhetoric that the other party is a boogeyman . The alt-right never said the libs want to turn you kids gay and/or trans.
Also, who says Harris is a communist, dumbass?
My man, please watch the news. You’re so full of shit it’s actually hilarious.
None of that has anything to do with the topic at hand.
It’s my choice to make whether that is true.
That’s not how reality works, I’m afraid.
That is exactly how subjective reality works. Everything is interconnected, so whether something is relevant to some subject is purely a matter of choice.
Except some people of questionable intelligence and culture consider their choice on that matter more important than that of others.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
“Why would I vote for a primary party candidate who supports ranked choice voting when I can just throw my vote away on a third-party candidate that will never be elected? I’ve got principles!”
Because apparently throwing your vote away will somehow convince politicians to move left or something, despite all the evidence that it won’t.
The only evidence we have is that not enough people vote third party.
Ranked choice voting seems like a great way to create huge political instability. Let’s take the system that has worked decent for 248 years and completely replace it with something less well tested. We already have uncertainty we don’t need to mess with the system more.
You don’t want to mess about with that democracy nonsense. We’ve had a monarchy that has worked decent for a millennium, and you want it replace it with some untested, newfangled system?
worked decent
This is how we know you’re not here in good faith 😬
Voting for either side is just accepting the status quo.
Third party vote today is just laying ground work for a generational fight. There is no other way to get the attention from the politicians.
They rule on behalf of donors and two party system ensures they ways win, they just take turns.
There is no other way to get the attention from the politicians.
And if those politicians are so keen on ignoring you, why would they listen to this? Oh, you voted for Cornel West because you’re “unsatisfied,” literally who cares? The status quo wins again, goodbye. Say hello to the camps.
Say hello to the camps.
is the new DNC FUD we get for voting third party?
yes please put me into fema camp staffed by obama death panel, my DNC komissar 🤡
You didn’t answer the question.
If the DNC doesn’t listen anyway, why would a 3rd party vote “get attention from them”?
I stated my position on this issue all over this thread.
But for you here again dear:
This tactic will only work if peasants are able to upset the regime sufficiently. a constant 3-5 percent every election, they will have to take notice. double digits they will have to start planning around it.
This is a generational tactic, it will take several cycles to get the message across IF AND ONLY IF we can get 2-10% of voters of to go third choice every single election across all elections.
This is a guerilla, asymmetric tactic. No doubt about it.
But it very low cost from personal perspective but can be easily scaled if public sentiment turns.
Once, we got the regime asking questions we can start getting proper 3p candidates in places. Or people can start now on them… but everybody can start denying the regime legitimacy today.
And what happens in the mean time? Third parties almost always take votes from the Democrats. (That is to say, most of the people who vote third party would have voted Democrat if the third party was not on the ballot.) This gives a huge advantage to the Republican party on close elections. The result is further entrenching of the party that has the larger vested interest in not reforming the system. As a result, any generational movement has no chance of succeeding because the party that directly opposes their goal is always in power.
(To expand: since Democrats lose votes to third parties, they are the ones who would greatly benefit from any kind of ranked choice voting, so they tend to support such reforms. Since Republicans benefit more from FPTP, they tend to oppose such reforms.)
It’s all well and good to send a message, but that message will be received by the people who benefit most by ignoring that message.
The better method is to get people in power now who support election reform, get those reforms passed, then third party candidates become viable.
And what happens in the mean time?
The same thing that has been happening since at least the 80s. Quality of life will continue to slowly degrade, less natural child birth, more immigration, more work, less pay, higher taxes.
Your comment hinges on the idea that “if we just vote for democrats this one more time, they will finally reverted the course”
I don’t believe this position. I know most people still do. Hence why this is will be a generational change as more and more people become disenfranchised they will stop voting for either party. We are already partially here but the regime got away because nobody cares about low voter turn outs.
I am shilling fuck NOT VOTING, VOTE AGAINST THESE PARASITES.
If you are a dedicated Democrat, then vote Democrat. That’s how voting works, everybody gets a their vote and they can do with it as they please.
I don’t understand how “I am taking away votes from Democrats”
Why would I care? These people are not my friend, family or “team”
Together with Republicans, the Democrats are the regime the elites use to oppress working people. Why would I engage with a bad faith actor?
deleted by creator
No, no, THIS time protest-voting to allow fascism will work to usher in a real left-wing movement in this country, promise! /s
Yeah, fascist government are known for doing some voting reforms after all
this way of thinking assumes that having “muhh team” win will result any change, when historical record shows that the two party system has degraded quality of life for most people over last 40 years with no end in sight.
but sure keep voting for your team lol we can revisit this topic when we are all living hand to mouth and have even less economic power
That is not at all what the comment you replied to meant. Anyone with reading comprehension would know that.
ohh ok, what did it mean then?
Splitting the vote allows an opening for fascists to take control with a minority of support, like they do.
ahh yes… muhh team right, vote for my guy, trust me bro 🤡
Anyway, the two party regime is the same guy, y’all can keep doing these mental gymnastics but people are taking notice. why keep doing the same thing and expect different result?
You can keep voting for your “guy” while some will vote third party as protest vote to deny the regime legitimacy.
Can you see that you’re arguing against fictitious strawmen? You seem to be operating under the delusion that for all the dumb normies who have “bought into” the existing two-party system, politics is just a game that they play without understanding. You’ve reduced them all to NPC’s who lack the capacity to reason; obviously their only motivation could be mindless conformity to their “team”.
Is it your contention that it doesn’t matter what party controls the branches of government, because they’re both the same? While this is factually inaccurate, it would at least be in line with the actions you’re advocating. Speaking of which, how exactly do you imagine a “protest” vote would deny the subsequently elected government legitimacy? What force and effect do you foresee that action producing? Because anyone with a working knowledge of our electoral system can tell you that the only discernable result will be the empowerment of the minority party, which in this case seeks a fascist overthrow of our democratic system.
What you’re doing here is applying shallow, childish logic to a complex and nuanced problem, while pretending to have some high-minded motivations which—if they exist at all—clearly haven’t been thought through.
google bullshit asymmetry and then use fewer word when talking to bads
You are shilling for the status quo. I reject the status quo.
People can make their own decisions.
Once again, severe reading comprehension issues. Got it.
“the brain bin” has a hole in it.
Just vote for my team bro!
Third parties are mathematically impossible until we ditch first past the post voting:
We need our vote to be a list, not a checkbox.
This is the way. It is possible and unlikely to have a third party win under the right conditions, like with how the Republican Party became a national party after Lincoln was elected as a third party candidate. But ultimately there will always only be two parties with the outdated FPTP voting method. If only George Washington knew about and pushed for a better voting system than FPTP.
I don’t think they really existed yet in his era. You’ve got to remember that Australia, a much younger country, invented the secret ballot. It was known as the “Australian Ballot” for a long time.
I don’t think they really existed yet in his era
In 1294-1621 the election of the Pope used Approval voting. Venice also used it.
Australia, a much younger country, invented the secret ballot
The election of the Pope required secret ballot since 1621. And the concept existed since Ancient Greece and was used in elections and courts of Roman Republic.
Better systems existed but to your point, they were not well known.
Leaders today, with access to Wikipedia if not researchers with Nobel prizes, do NOT have this excuse.
Well yes, obviously. The issue with today is that the incumbency of the system makes it hard to change
IMO, it’s not the full story to say the Republican party was a third party that year. The previous opposition to the Democrats had a rift and came apart. I think you are underselling what “the right conditions” are. This is more like a new party filling a void.
That year the Democrats themselves (regressives as this was well before Southern Strategy) split into two. Running both a candidate for “states’ rights” style slavery and another for “fuck you, slavery everywhere” style slavery.
All it takes is a bunch of celebrities endorsing third parties and it’s done. At some point in your lifetime you will probably see a third party winning in the usa and it will simply happen with media and celebrities redirecting everyone vote. It happens all the time in other countries: people get tired of the local rulers and to keep protests and disorder at bay the government through mass media redirects attentions to a new and fresh party that already got bribed and corrupted by the ruling class.
In Australia government funding is distributed to political parties based on the number of first preference votes they get as well so even if your first choice doesn’t get in, you still helped them by putting them first.
Yeah, even getting a party 1 seat can be great. They are required to be heard. They can raise issues which the other parties must address.
FPTP is not real democracy for this reason.
I like CGP Grey and all, but power dynamics is an important aspect of poltics. An aspect he completely ignores in favour of spreadsheet thinking.
Yeah so proportional representation systems kinda suck. Israel has one and it ended up with a conservative party making concessions to far right crazies to form a coalition. Sure minorities are in the parliament, but they have zero power because the only thing that matters is the backroom negotiations between parties to form a coalition.
The biggest problem with FPTP is the name. Really we should call it a community representation system (which is what it is) and call proportional representation system a “party coalition” system, which is what it actually is. In a party coalition system the negotiations between party leaders to form coalitions is all that matters, everyone else is just there to fill seats which are owned by the parties.
In a community representation system each seat is own by a representative of the community who can vote against their party or leave their party. Parties are incentivized to keep the community leaders happy or they could lose seats.
If you want third parties, it’s better to go with a ranked choice system. That gives people more choice over who represents their community, and allow them to have compromise options in case their top choice doesn’t get enough votes. You don’t actually have to give parties full ownership of the seats (making them redundant) to have more options.
An aspect he completely ignores in favour of spreadsheet thinking.
That’s bc he explains each concept mostly in isolation of others, leaving other concepts for separate videos themselves. But in e.g. Rules for Rulers, he very much discusses power dynamics. And I thought he had another one - in addition to the more mathematical one - illustrating FPTP using the animal kingdom, where technically people might assume one thing to be true, but based on power dynamics in practice it never is.
So watch Rules for Rulers yet if you haven’t - it may change literally everything about your understanding, as it did mine.
Edit - references:
-
rules for Rulers, outlining necessary considerations involved with any path forward - i.e. it works against anyone and especially those who ignore this principle
Yeah I’ve seen all of these videos before. Problem is, these aren’t isolated concepts. There are very specific power dynamics within a proportional representation system that aren’t the same as the power dynamics in a community representation system. He doesn’t go into those details in the rules for rulers videos, only the broad concept of democracy is mentioned. He only goes into a some math on the FPTP video but doesn’t discuss the differences power dynamics for those different systems.
Basically in a community representation system (called FPTP by people trying to make it sound arbritrary an unfair) the power flows up from the communities. In a proportional representation system the power flows down from the party leadership.
Considering the “rules for rulers” video it seems CGP Grey thinks all government has to be top down, so he doesn’t seem to have even considered the possibility of power flowing upwards from a community. This is what happens in the system he thinks is bad, so I’d say he hasn’t adequately considered everything about the subject.
We don’t actually elect rulers we elect people to represent our communities. Sure they’re usually part of a party but because we elect representatives, not parties, that representative has the option of leaving the party if it serves the interests of the community they represent. Since parties can lose seats between elections they have to listen to the the elected representatives (community leaders) to avoid losing seats. People in a community put pressure on their representative, the reps but pressure on the party leadership, power flows upwards from the people.
Proportional representation only seems better if you think as CGP does and believe we can only be ruled over and we need to find a better way to select rulers. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of representative democracy.
It seems you are mixing the concepts of voting systems and candidate selection. FPP nor FPTP should not sound scary. As a voting systems, FPP works well enough more often than many want to admit. The name just describes it in more detail: First Preference Plurality.
Every voting system is as bottom-up or top-down as the candidate selection process. The voting system itself doesn’t really affect whether it is top down or bottom up. Requiring approval/voting from the current rulers would be top-down. Only requiring ten signatures on a community petition is more bottom up.
The voting systems don’t care about the candidate selection process. Some require precordination for a “party”, but that could also be a party of 1. A party of 1 might not be able to get as much representation as one with more people: but that’s also the case for every voting system that selects the same number of candidates.
Voting systems don’t even need to be used for representation systems. If a group of friends are voting on where to eat, one problem might be selecting the places to vote on, but that’s before the vote. With the vote, FPP might have 70% prefer pizza over Indian food, but the Indian food vote might still win because the pizza voters had another first choice. Having more candidates often leads to minority rule/choice, and that’s not very good for food choice nor community representation.
He seems to think like a mathematician or philosopher and enjoyed considering each of those items separately, in isolation from one another - plus as a YouTuber, he needs to release moar content, moar often, so multiple videos helps him maintain his existence that way as opposed to a single, larger video, especially on a complex topic that since it is >1 minute long, the vast majority of people are not going to watch anyway.:-P
But anyway, if he’s already mathematically proved certain things about e.g. ranked-choice, and how it differs from whatever else, then why should he bother going further into the weeds, that the vast majority of people don’t care the tiniest bit about? After all, a look at basically every election ever, especially recently, reveals that the common people know next to nothing about how the system works. e.g. people voting against Hillary Clinton in 2016, either by voting 3rd party, or switching to the “Never Hillary” movement to actively vote for Trump, but then being shocked - shocked I tell you! SHOOKETH! - when he won. So if we can’t figure out that 1+1=2, then differential calculus, much less simple algebra, is going to be beyond us (collectively) as well.
So, I took it as not that he refused to consider those other possibilities, just that he was focusing his description to explain one thing in isolation of other concepts, as much as possible at least. e.g. regardless of whether he should have been talking about (or naming it as) FPTP, that’s what he was aiming to do, so that’s what he did.
About the Rules for Rulers I think similarly as above but also: the “rulers” there aren’t necessarily the ones in charge, as is true for the monarchies & totalitarian regimes, but rather the “voters” who put those people in charge. In that formulation, why should the non-voters (e.g. literal children, people who are mentally disabled, etc.) have power over & above that of the voters, i.e. the responsible “rulers”?
Although that is exactly what always ends up happening… eventually, in any such system. Imagine a person who votes, individually, but then also is responsible for gerrymandering a district of lets say a million people. So they should have had power equal to 1/1000000, though instead they overturned the decisions of those million people and single-handedly altered the election, FAR in excess of their individual voting power. They cannot overturn the collective weight of a full million voters all speaking with a single unified voice… but they could make a vote for e.g. 1/10th vs. 9/10ths end up with the former rather than the latter being in charge, which is pretty damn powerful (it doesn’t have to be “perfect”, it just has to work - possibly in conjunction with other things like removing certain classes of people as voters). So here, irl rather than in pure theory in isolation of irl considerations, “rulers” end up NOT being the voters, but rather those in charge b/c they are willing to cheat the system, to keep themselves in charge or at least others exactly like them, using non-voting schemes. i.e. it is the True Rulers™ who are “in charge” rather than the voting ones, who were put into place by non-voting systems, so the entire system gets turned upon its head and does if not 100% then still effectively the opposite of what it was originally intended to - that is, it ignores/overturns votes rather than uses them to determine the outcomes of elections.
So if we, the aspiring rulers i.e. voters, wish to actually rule, then we need to know what we are up against. And if others cheat… well then that does not mean that we have to as well, but we should at least be aware that that is what is going on!?! To some degree at least, even if not 100%, hence it is “biased” and “unfair” and “rigged”. That is what I took from those videos, collectively.
Removed by mod
Switzerland has a good system, just copy it. (Yes, not the same country, size difference and so on and on but its still a thousand times better than the US system)
I also generally prefer a Condorcet Method (ranked choice, single winner) over mixed-member-proportional, but either one would be a massive improvement over our current system.
I’ll take Approval voting, even.
Yeah so proportional representation systems kinda suck. Israel has one
If you’re going to use a genocidal cult as your counter-example to democracy, why not just talk about the nazis?
Math doesn’t decide what people vote, they are free to vote anything they want. Parties don’t automatically side with each others because another is most likely to win. This video is rooted in the mindset that politics and elections are a horse race between left and right.
What’s preventing third parties from winning it’s not math but the propaganda and the power of the red and blue party. The ruling parties didn’t become this powerful mathematically. Over decades and centuries the ruling class paved their way and ensured their power with violence and repression.
If third parties aren’t mathematically impossible, where are all members of third party during midterms? Local elections? The work it takes to make real lasting change is done down ballot, where are they at those times? Why do they only creep up during presidential races? The above analogy may not be perfect, but it’s pretty damned close… but we could also compare third party to all the lazy animals in the story of the little red hen…
The government spend billions of dollars to make sure third parties are nowhere to be seen. This post being evidence. You got a fascist party and one involved in a genocide yet you see warnings about not voting for anyone else.
It doesn’t take a whole lot of money to run for city council, local officials, sherif, alderman. It takes a bit, but not millions to run for state government positions. Are you saying the federal government is quashing local and state third parties? That is where you make your sweeping electoral reforms for federal elections. Why don’t we ever hear about them making moves in those races? Where are they when I go to vote for my city council? My county commissioners? Are you telling me the federal government is coming down and removing them from ballots?
That’s a pretty serious accusation, and I’d love to see some sources on that, because I’m with you all the way if that’s the case.
But when you’ve got someone who was wined and dined by an impotent dictator, and a half dozen of his cronies and yes men coming in and trying to split the vote for the best chance of preventing a take over by the impotent dictator’s choice clown… and then suddenly you’ve got people toting her banner when she’s been largely silent the past 3.5 years… it kind of makes you wonder, or it should… assuming you’ve got more than 3 braincells reenacting the DVD screen saver.
Why don’t we ever hear about them making moves in those races?
Because mass media are own by government and rich people. If you try to compete with them they take you down
I see a few bits of information about it happening at the presidential election level, but I’m not finding anything at the state and local level. Can you provide some sources on that?
Who’s we?
The working class I guess? Certainly no one with power.
Americans. “We” already have preferential voting.
I was a proud third party voter for a long time but changed my mind after watching CGPGrey’s video about first past the post. It’s not really ABOUT trying to change minds but FPTP voting rules really do mean that a two party system is bound to very basic human psychology.
It’s not even psychology, it’s just the optimal strategy.
Game theory, which is just maths, matters more than psychology, even
If you watched that video you probably realized we are using the worst possible voting system and are actively advocating for reforming the American voting process?
Any chance I get!
Many countries with FPTP have multi-party systems, including Canada and the UK.
Yet we still always have the Liberals or the Conservatives in power… the power always ends up consolidated anyway, at least here in Canada.
That makes sense logically. At the end of the day people lead toward groups with shared views. A lot of the issue tend to be yes/no like answers which creates two parties
Don’t think of it as politics, think of it as a regime. They control the political process and switch spots based on public sentiment.
The political process is a charade as long as people keep voting in polarized way. The propaganda is there to keep us polarized. Most Anglo sphere appears to be infected at this point.
Individual constituencies are still two party, it’s just not necessarily always the same two.
768 votes wth is wrong with Americans bruh
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Tehreek-e-Insaf
If you can create a successful grassroots political party in an environment where your party members and constituents are constantly attacked, murdered, bombed, jailed, tortured, votes faked, votes destroyed, and vote miscounts, you can definitely pull it off in the USA.
It took Pakistan only 20 years to cause a collapse of their corrupt 2 party system and challenge the military dictatorship. People never believed PTI would mount any sort of challenge, but they did by building a solid populist movement, despite facing all of the above.
The “you must vote the lesser evil” is a fallacy that both parties in the USA perpetuate in an attempt to convince you to believe 3rd party voting is a waste of time.
You can’t just sit back and complain about the rigged system like “but muh first past the poll voting” as if either Democrats or Republicans will change the system in any way to make it easier for their rivals.
This is exactly why I dislike the Democratic party in particular so much. They are a corporate monolith that pretends to care about your leftist demands by handing out pennies worth of change to get your vote, then the second they refuse to actually significantly change something you demand, they have the audacity to blame you, the voter, for not sucking up to their shitty policies when they inevitably lose the election.
Current case in point: "There is no genocide in Gaza, and we believe we can win without our constituents because our opponent is a mentally insane baby ".
Shittiest take on this community by far.
Want to build a viable third party for presidential elections? Start small at the city/county level and eventually you will have candidates at the state/federal level. Today’s city council is tomorrow’s senator/president. Does it really surprise anyone that a relatively unknown and unproven candidate outside of the two major parties doesn’t get any traction in a federal election?
That’s already the goal of state chairs for third parties.
Oh it’s that easy eh?
I think you might need to reread my post, I didn’t say it was easy. It’s reality, which generally isn’t easy.
we aint getting elected viable third party until the two party regime is denied legitimacy which is done by not voting for either party. deny them engagement by voting third party, anyone really.
Just keep smashing yourself into the bricks to “deny the wall legitimacy” or whatever. I’m sure it will work this time.
let me keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result 🤡
let me keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result 🤡
Says the people who keep voting 3rd party in federal elections and are certain that this time the result will be different.
*all elections
So you don’t agree that starting from the ground up won’t work? Why not? Too much effort or takes too much time?
If you are talking about viable third party candidate, then my position is: current political stage has no room for one hence why i shill more a narrower scope goal of “deny the two-party regime legitimacy”
Something that people can get behind, act upon individually and directly while avoiding getting sucked into political left/right circle jerk.
Bigger picture would obviously involve a proper 3 third party candidates to upset the duopoly. Either by winning outright or forcing the two parties to provide concessions to the voters instead of current “get fucked peasants, I am serving my corpo daddies”
These 3p candidates need for voting public set the stage for them by making third vote a viable path for a politician/movement.
My original thesis enables this while not getting into the political weeds but it does not stop others from building on it. If people got their 3p, then they should shill it! Even if every person votes for their own guy but sufficient amount of people do it, then it would still lead to awkward situation why are there 9% of voters who did not chose “regime”
LOL and how do you suppose we make third parties viable? Thoughts and prayers?
You mean in the USA? I guess the more viable path is to campaign to fix their democracy from within the democratic party. And then make new parties.
Spliting from within the party is the usual way.
Maybe in America. But check other countries. They have preferential voting systems.
Primary elections are how parties change. Primary elections are how the Republican party became what it is today. They are often the highest-leverage vote you can cast if you’re in a solid district.
Yup. People don’t realize there is already a not horrible approximation of runoff voting that still avoids the spoiler effect.
And just look at what happened when Sanders realized that. He went from being a meme about how nobody watches C-SPAN to one of the more influential politicians on the Left.
Primaries are still subject to spoiler effects and such.
In my very blue state this year where the top two in the primary go on to the general, there was a local position which had a whole bunch of well qualified Democrats vs just a couple of Republicans. (Incumbent not running)
The dem vote was split enough that we very nearly had just the two Republicans in the general. Like less than 60 votes away.
And there are scenarios under runoff voting where similar can occur (e.g. two seats, 2 right wing, 4 left wing) and is where the “election theory” aspect of things that certain folk are still bitching about (because that is the most important thing to have happened in the past 8 years, clearly). The party needs to take the results of the primary and downselect who actually runs to avoid splitting their own vote.
No voting system is perfect. But people should really understand what we have and what their NEED improves and fails to improve rather than just insisting “new is better”.
Well I’d say it’s still pretty bad with the super delegates and such. But yeah it’s runoff system of sorts and people should pay more attention to it.
But a lot of the “system is broken” angst comes from people being not happy over who the majority of people vote for. But that’s just democracy, baby.
But the Electoral College, yeah that shit is broken.
Remind me who won in 2016? How do you think all those Bernie supporters felt about the election that was still very much influenced by FPTP dynamics.
More voters went from Hillary Clinton to John McCain in 2008 than went from Sanders to Trump in 2016 -Source
Primary elections aren’t democratic either (see party delegates). I feel like people who say this are rarely politically engaged in their communities. Same with the people who say to get involved in local city politics to make change.
Ultimately you’re supporting a facist system that is historically atrocious and currently financially supporting a genocide almost singlehandedly but go ahead and keep telling people that the best way to maintain some semblance of moral character is to vote in this sham.
Too bad the dems skipped the primary and just anointed their candidate.
