347
Choice (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago by Linkerbaan@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Euphorazine@lemmy.world 84 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Alaska, a red state, is reportedly trying to remove their rank choice voting. This isn't a "Dems" problem, it's a two party problem.

https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_2,_Repeal_Top-Four_Ranked-Choice_Voting_Initiative_(2024)

Even if state and local elections are ranked choice, the presidential election will still be a first past the post election and the electoral college is still designed for a two party system.

[-] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 month ago

Obviously the Republicans are completely hostile to rcv, but the nominal progressives here aren't hoping the Republicans will implement rcv, they think Dems will. I have someone arguing exactly that to me in another thread because three congresspeople are currently setting a proposal up to be shot down.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

So you primary in Dems who will support ranked choice. This is .ml, surely you've all heard of entryism?

[-] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago

Entryism doesn't work, putting yourself under the discipline of a party apparatus that runs contrary to your goals means you either get extricated or you conform.

The dems don't give a shit about primary results. Bernie's relative strength in the primary meant nothing to Biden and understandably so, because why should he give a shit when Bernie endorses him and the bulk of the progressives are so whipped they vote for him anyway?

[-] anarcho_blinkenist@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
  1. That's not what entryism is. Entryism isn't "voting democrat candidates who support xyz in primaries." Entryism is infiltrating an organization's membership with communists(or what have you), with the intent to change the basic proportional makeup of its membership ranks, and so change its interior political composition, and so its exterior action.

  2. Entryism is explicitly and categorically denounced by every serious ML as having proven historically and politically ineffective at best, and actively counterproductive and opportunist at worst and most common by far; and has been in explicit terms criticized as such for a century. Saying "Surely you've heard of entryism?" to Marxists is like saying "Surely you've heard of filling masks with lavender to keep away the miasma?" to an epidemiologist.

  3. The point mentioned in #2 is by a factor of 100 extra true for an organization like the democratic party, which is (just like the Republican party) a monstrous behemoth of leagues of multi-generational dynastic establishment careerist ghouls, thieves, racketeers, and murderers from multi-billionaire elite university family empires; whose entire operations are financed, advised, organized, and run by and for the richest imperialists in the world, with uncountable streams of both open channel money and dark money from private billionaires, banks, industrial monopolies (fossil fuels, pharma, agribusiness, etc.), arms dealers, conglomerate Super PACS, shady Think-tanks and "NGOs," and the Israel lobby. Obama's cabinet was hand-picked by Citigroup. Biden has appointed all the most heinous neocons and war criminals he could find, even bringing back convicted massacrists like Elliot Abrams; and hiring the most corrupt people he could find, such as a Chevron lawyer who defended the destruction of the Amazon and poisoning of Indigenous people to head his Environmental executive. All while outflanking the Republicans on the right of many issues including immigration.

**

The Democrats actively benefit just like the Republicans from hyper-restricted 2-corporate-party system, proven by them, currently as we speak, sending out leagues of dark-money Super-PAC-financed lawyers to every state they can to try to purge 3rd parties off the ballots; actively killing democracy. This is their goal and interest, because it is the goal and interest of their donors. They have no interest in a different or better world and never will. Even someone as milquetoast as Bernie ran into endless smears and obstruction and undermining and got nowhere and has capitulated more and more to the right wing by hitching his boat to this circus. The liberal darlings "the squad" have each capitulated or even become active careerists and attack-dogs for the establishment imperialists against alternatives and progressives, barring Ilhan Omar who has faced endless shit and isolation even from the rest of that coward group of "progressive" dems, to say nothing of the establishment that actually runs the show with their army of equally-careerist factory-stamped liberal interns at their beck and call, pipelined from upscale colleges with PoliSci degrees to do whatever bidding they want.

The Democrats are not going to change for anyone but their donors and have proven it for decades; and they are structurally incapable of being budged internally toward anything remotely resembling democracy or socialism. Entryism to the democratic party is beyond a dead end. It would It would be more effective and principled to vote third party and continually elevate a working class party (Like the PSL) and visibly starve the democrats of votes for their failures and betrayals and making it known that is the reason; which would force a political reorientation of the democrats if they ever want power again. This necessary reorientation is impossible within the Democratic party structures, so the ruling class would have to figure out to desperately float a reformist "labor party" or "progressive party" to capture people being funneled to the PSL socialists, and this reformist party would receive an influx of the less-far-right careerist liberals from the Democrats fleeing to the new party "like rats from a sinking ship;" while the Republicans and remaining establishment Democrats proper inevitably join together in a coalition like David Lloyd George's Conservative-Liberal coalition, or like Macron's doing with the fascists in France. It's not even much of a leap for them compared to the existent state of things


they've already been converging for decades and most of us have already come to feel the effects of it.

And this way by elevating the PSL, a real working class party who have a broader picture for revolutionary change than limiting to parliamentary dog-and-pony shows against the richest most evil people on the planet, you're actually helping the ground-up elevation of meaningful on-the-ground working class politics which speak to the 35-50% who are so disillusioned and disenfranchised by the lies and corruption and bloodthirst of the corporate-imperialist duopoly-of-exploiters that they don't even vote


and activating them into actual meaningful political movement-building and action with a revolutionary long-term perspective, while forcing the establishment's hand to intercede how it can, highlighting the contradictions and failures of the system. Instead of finding new ways to capitulate to it (which are actually the same ways people have been capitulating to it for a century).

[-] venusaur@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

It is a two party problem but dems and their cult-like followers act like the politicians they worship can do no wrong. Both parties are businesses and that’s it.

[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 71 points 1 month ago

Right on. Once the republicans have enough of a majority they will deal with all these voting problems.

[-] Hathaway@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 month ago

Both parties say third party votes helps the other side. I have a feeling, it actually just helps 3rd party. Especially if both sides don’t want it.

[-] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Really not that complicated. If a person who would otherwise vote Democrat instead votes 3rd party, it helps the Republicans. So the Democrat politician says it to that person. Likewise, the Republican says it to those that would otherwise vote Republican. Both parties now claim that it helps the other, but whom it really helps depends on who would otherwise be voted for.

From my outside, proportional representative having-position, 3rd party voting only becomes viable if it is discussed outside of the 6 months before an election. And not in the general "3rd party" term, but with an actual party name attached.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 9 points 1 month ago

this should be required reading before anyone is allowed to leave a comment on Lemmy about voting

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 70 points 1 month ago

Someone's unwillingness to implement an effective solution doesn't make an ineffective solution the answer.

The way forward on this is hounding them until they implement it, not fighting the math:

https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 month ago

If a solution doesn't have a realistic path to implementation, it doesn't matter. The system itself is designed against change, RCV is something neither party actually wants.

Some few Democrats or states are allowed to support it as far as it gives RCV supporters some semblence of power, without actually pressuring the system.

Even if RCV was implemented, and a Third Party candidate won, the 2 establishment parties would work against any radical change.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago

if they wont give us what we want or need they dont deserve our votes, maybe next time they will offer more than "im not the other guy", if the democrats will not be pushed left then they should be destroyed.

[-] CasualPenguin@reddthat.com 13 points 1 month ago

In order for politics to align towards your values you have to vote for the candidate closest to them, which forces the losing parties to get closer or die, which pushes the winning party to move towards you.

If you throw away or don't vote none of that happens because you have no impact.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lengau@midwest.social 66 points 1 month ago

My city had ranked choice voting implemented by Democrats in the 1970s. They elected the first black mayor, who is still one of our most beloved mayors in the city's history, under RCV.

Then Republicans made it illegal at a state level when they had a trifecta. Democrats keep introducing bills at the state level to allow RCV, and Republicans take more and more drastic action against it. So yeah... I want more Democrats in my state government so we can have RCV.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Ragdoll_X@lemmy.world 62 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[-] bastion@feddit.nl 12 points 1 month ago

Those three Democrat are focusing on the thing all of the Democrats and Republicans should.

[-] OmnislashIsACloudApp@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

oh yes the standard reply.

Rs actively tearing it down like in Alaska

Ds putting forth a bill to do it but only started by three of them this time around

"both sides are the same!"

yawn

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago

The Dems will preserve a political model that's at least malleable. 3rds will need to work together to push ranked choice more and more into voters' field of view.

Republicans will swan-dive into fascism, in which case 3rds (and everyone else) are fucked.

Dems aren't going to help 3rds directly, but any one who wants the possibility of a 3rd party victory later is committing political suicide by failing to vote blue as a means of buying time. Voting 3rd when that 3rd has no potential for victory is self-destructive.

[-] isaaclw@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Also just following the green party a bit and educating your self about them... you learn that the green party is as focused on selfish personal horse race politics that deals with power plays, as the dem party (though on a smaller scale) instead of actual change.

This political cycle, Green party had a chance to radically push the Dems on palestine, by putting up a candidate that would drop out if Dems changed their position on support for Israel.

Jill Stein rejected it.

Just the fact they rejected it shows to me that they're not serious about actual political change. They just want to be a spoiler. They continue to only run in general elections instead ofnpushing in states.

So I guess i have no home party, but Ill vote for the lesser of two evils still.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The Dems will preserve a political model that’s at least malleable.

Much like during covid when they gave preferential treatment to themselves while simultaneously working to remove the Green party from ballots.

-More to the point your comment runs contrary to reality and the very nature of the joke pointed out in the meme.

[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

The green party only exists because the GOP keeps giving them money. The only time anyone ever hears a damn word out of them, is when they're showing up to split the Dem vote for the GOP.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You might want lay off the Blue MAGA conspiracies for a bit.

Commission certifies Jill Stein eligible to receive federal matching funds (2024)

Based on documents received on June 3, 2024, Jill Stein and Jill Stein for President 2024 (JSFP) fulfilled the agreement and certification requirements and contributions

To become eligible for matching funds, candidates must submit Candidate and Committee Agreements and Certifications as well as raise a threshold amount of $100,000 by collecting $5,000 in 20 different states in amounts no greater than $250 from any individual.

Also the entire Democratic party runs on AIPAC which is actually funded by Republicans. Dems reaching unprecedented levels of projection.

[-] mashbooq@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago
[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

When everything Democrats don't like is a Russian GOP state agent because someone drew some text on an image and they did zero fact checking, you know they've reached MAGA levels.

If any of these insane conspiracies were actually true the Green party would not even be allowed to run. The Democrats have done everything to try to concern troll the Greens off ballots in most "democratic" fashion.

[-] mashbooq@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

They might label some people incorrectly as russian agents, but the reality is that there is a concerted effort by russia to undermine the US democracy, mostly directed at the Democratic Party, and making some mistakes doesn't make them delusional.

It's pretty hard to prosecute propaganda in the US due to the First Amendment, so it's not accurate to say that just because the Greens can run, they must not be russian agents.

The concern about the Greens is eminently logical: they are never going to win, so the best they can do is take votes from the Democrats, allowing the fascists to win. This is in fact what happened in the election of Polk, leading to the Mexican-American war and the theft of Texas from Mexico, which was then admitted as an additional slave state. Further, the Greens do little to nothing other than run in big national races, so it's not a leap to think they're deliberately running a spoiler campaign.

Finally, none of that has anything to do with the silly attempt to label Democrats as "Blue MAGA", since MAGA is a quasi-religious fascist personality cult, none of which can be credibly attributed to Democrats.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Corvid@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago
[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 month ago

So three of the more than 250 elected democrats are trying, not for the first time by the way, to get the rest of their party to take it seriously. Talk to me when more than 2% of the Democrats do something about it because otherwise its basically just a platitude.

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 18 points 1 month ago

Bills are often started by one or a few people to get voted on by others. It will be resisted, but not by the side that would do well with a ranked choice with other left-sided third parties.

That would make more sense if this was their first time putting this bill forward, but it's not. They've tried this before and none of the other Democrats could be chuffed to stand behind it. This isn't new.

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago

Bills don't often get passed on the first try. If anything you should be critical that this is only the second time, it ought to be a constant attempt to change a system that seemingly everyone not making a profit from is against. I'll also say that the only way anything like this will get passed is through the left, the right does not want everyone to get a vote. So it will likely fail again somewhere unless the ratio of left-right shifts. As is true of any bills that favor the public good.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is a few people not the party as a whole.

Notably there is a platform out there for the Democratic candidate. Unless I missed something RCV is not on the agenda.

[-] Psychodelic@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Do those goalposts have little feet on them?

"Democrats wouldn't do this"

Democrats do this

"No, not like that"

Look, I said it in a dumb meme format so you know it's true

(I appreciate you for posting here, just making fun of you 😊)

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 26 points 1 month ago
[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

To the surprise of nobody Republicans also don't support a voting system that would end the Democrat-Republican duopoly.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 23 points 1 month ago

New York City established Ranked Choice voting in 2020 under a Dem Mayor and majority Dem City Council.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] lengau@midwest.social 10 points 1 month ago

Gotta give people their Two Minutes Hate or they might remember that voting for Democrats is, for most Americans, the actual least evil option on November 5.

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 13 points 1 month ago

Isn't what they established in Alaska thanks in large part to democrats???

Edit: lol, seeing a lot of downvotes but I'm not seeing anybody refuting it either. Feel free to prove me wrong of course!

[-] tkk13909@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago

There's a "Vote No on Ranked Choice Voting" sign on my way to work.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] echo@lemmings.world 8 points 1 month ago

No, and it's stupid to suggest they would.

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago

I bet dems would be more open to ranked choice if more people voted for third parties, because as long as the population believes they must vote Democrat or Republican and no one else, neither of those parties have any incentive to change. If lesser evilism stops getting people to vote for the two ruling parties, then there would be incentive for them to change. Short of that you're relying on politicians to do the right thing instead of the profitable thing, which is a fools game.

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 11 points 1 month ago

The problem is really that republicans keep putting up the worst possible candidates and policies. If the choice was "A sort of bad candidate or another sort of bad candidate", we'd all happily vote third party and if the slightly-worse-but-not-appreciably-so candidate won as a result, it wouldn't be a huge hurdle and over a few election cycles we could maybe effect change.

Instead, in that scenario, it leads to Trump and Project 2025 and I'd love to hear your explanation of how that helps us get progressive candidates into office, because I just don't see it.

I'm a "single issue voter" and that "single issue" is that I don't want another Trump presidency, so I'll vote strategically to prevent that from happening, even if I'd much rather have someone else.

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
347 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

45601 readers
1036 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS