229
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
229 points (74.4% liked)
Memes
45163 readers
2744 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- 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
In real, actionable, practical terms: What is the alternative you propose people choose, that will reduce the likelyhood of a fascist government right now at this election?
Primary them in!
Edit: too late for this election.
First past the post voting in a two party system gives you a 99.9999% likelihood of a facist government this election IMHO The only practical action to enact change seems to be a mass general strike.
It's a shit voting system. But the election is happening. How to effect a mass general strike large enough to change the voting system and introduce a new candidate with a chance of winning within two months?
Because that is needed in order to safely tell people not to vote.
Do both? I'm not saying don't vote I'm saying the impact of voting is not enough to enact substantial change in policy.
Congrats for destroying your credibility with "both sides" bullshit.
Meanwhile, back in factual reality, the Democrats aren't fascist and have more than a 0.00001% chance of winning.
Would you like to place bets on the chance of there being a 2028 election? I won't even ask for 1:100000 odds, I'll happily accept 1:100
Claudia de la Cruz from PSL
Okay, and how do you plan to get them into the hearts and minds of around 50% of the population in the next 2 months, when the vast majority haven't even heard of her? It's not enough to have someone who could be a good president, you also need to get people to vote for them. If you want most of the population to vote for someone, they need to be aware of them as a viable option years beforehand.
I agree that the 2 choices are pawns of the rich, but even if every person who knew about Claudia voted for her, she wouldn't even get enough votes for her to make the news, much less win. We're talking about tens of millions of people voting in unison for an election win to happen in this country. At this stage in the game, there are only 2 candidates with that kind of draw power. If you want to focus on the 2028 election (assuming there is one, since there clearly won't be if Trump wins) to get a 3rd viable candidate on that ballot, that's a noble plan, but by now this election's potential winners are already down to 2.
Voting isn't about closing your eyes and saying "I want someone good to win!" It's about assessing which people might actually win, and voting for the one that best aligns with your views, however loosely. It's about strategy. If you want to change that, you need to build national presence in the name of your preferred candidate, and you need to start years ahead of the elections. Big changes don't happen at the ballot, they happen during the campaigning stage and beforehand. If your candidate isn't on the news every day leading up to the election, most voters won't even know they're an option.
Voting is about choosing good candidates (or parties, or policies). If your system doesn't let you vote, then you should consider changing your system.
Voting is about choosing good candidates well before it gets pared down to 2 options. It's about choosing a good local government, choosing good representatives, choosing good senators. If the only thing you care about is the President, then you'll never have a good pool of options from which the parties will pick a presidential candidate. They're not on our side - it's our job to force their hand with a deck stacked with good candidates. But only the people who pay attention to politics well before election year get to have a say in stuff like that.
In the US, yes. I was making a general statement. A voting system can be set up in multiple ways, but if it forces people to play lesser of the two evils then it is broken and needs to be changed.