901
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 29 Oct 2024
901 points (96.1% liked)
politics
19088 readers
3627 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's how it's going to be as long as we continue to use First Past the Post voting.
And since the only people who have the desire, and potentially the power, to change that are Progressives who caucus with the Democrats, vote Progressive in the primaries and Democrat in the general. If you're not willing to do that, then yeah you might as well get comfortable with the current system.
Not only, it's democracy at it's core. Because there is no "perfect " leader, it's an illusion that people like trump are more than happy to sell for the masses, but unfortunately even some progressive are buying it. Democracy is based on pragmatic nagotiations and gradual progress.
But there is a big difference between “perfect” and “beholden at all, in any fucking way, to their constituents.”
The DNC gets to refuse to run any progressive policies and say shit like “nothing will fundamentally change” because their entire policy is “at least I’m not Trump.”
Hence
Get enough Progressives and enough left-leaning Democrats together on the issue of rank choice voting, and it really could happen. Obviously, I'm of the opinion that it's the only way it could happen. So even if the chances are small, it's what I think we should shoot for.
I mean I wasn’t saying you’re wrong just pointing that the representation doesn’t need to be “perfect”
But also voting for the party that has sued to keep 3rd party off ballots & runs attack ads on third parties to hope that they eventually allow ranked choice or star or etc. is kinda not exactly looking probable but hey, here’s hoping.
Yes it sucks but that's reality. Until half of America stops being fascist sympathizers at best this is what you have to deal with.
You guys are looking at the choice between eating a salad and swallowing a cyanide pill and complaining that you'd rather have pizza. Unfortunately, pizza isn't on the table and if you do nothing that cyanide pill is getting forced down everyone's throat. Complain about it as much as you like but at the end of the day you better choke down that god damn salad before we all get completely fucked over.
“Vote to kill your family or kill yourself.” Is quite the uh… great democratic message that really says “DNC, vote for us, because we’re not (all) openly facist.”
Like I know you probably did not brain that whole thing through there but like fucking lol.
Anyways my point was a counter to needing a perfect representative. They don’t need to be perfect, just need to actually care about what their constituents want/need. Yeah it is bad. Duh. We know it is fucked up that’s why people are discussing alternative ways to vote that do not boil down to Evil and slightly less evil. We don’t need pure good as a candidate. Just… someone who listens to those they want to vote for them?
Like… not actively supporting and contributing to genocide would be a cool start? Public health care would also be nice…
So two things:
2020 saw 66% voter turnout, and 2018 saw 49% turnout. Both are records for a presidential and non-presidential year. Only 37% of Americans voted in all three elections in 2018, 2020, and 2022. Politicians do care about what their constituents want/need. They do listen. But they only care about and listen to the ones who vote. People who don't vote don't get a say, it's really as simple as that, and the online cohort that cries most loudly about third parties and alternative means of governance usually does exactly zero between presidential election years to make any of that viable. Jill Stein will disappear again until 2028, like clockwork.
Progressives are only about ~~12%~~ 6% of the population (corrected). What you want is only a small part of the overall picture. The fact remains that just because you don't feel like politicians are listening to you doesn't mean they're not listening to the huge numbers of people elsewhere on the political spectrum who probably fundamentally disagree with you on a number of different issues and think of something completely different when they talk about what they want in the healthcare system.
Being a part of a pluralistic democracy means having to wrestle with the fact that you are not the center of the universe, and that the entire population probably doesn't think like you do, and they get to vote, too.
Damn I didn’t know 69% was a small number of people.
https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/wat_04242020.jpg
Or 55%
https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx
Or 60+%
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/23/7-facts-about-americans-views-of-money-in-politics/
Boy, I sure have unpopular ideas I would liked
But also, when you split shit 50%, 12% progressive is basically 24% of your base. Actively ignoring 24% of your base seems fucking crazy, but again. Sure dude. The 2016 election went so well for them when they actively antagonised progressives. I’m sure that great strategy will keep paying off.
Also I’ve voted in every major and minor election since I turned 18. But my favourite part is you’re supposed to vote. But you’re told you have to vote for one of two candidates because the others are spoilers. But then they look at less than a third of a percent of the vote going to progressive party and ignore us.
Always cool.
Also, PSL is constantly doing work, organizing, and helping out communities. Their website honestly doesn’t even have a thing on the front about their presidential candidate last I remember checking.
Amazing what happens when you dig beneath soundbytes on healthcare:
Also, until a majority votes based on Gaza and money in politics, neither will be addressed. Just because someone agrees with you doesn't mean it will affect their vote. Sad but true.
That's called "doing what a significant majority of your voters want." Not doing so would be political suicide.
This is not about you. You are not the center of the universe.
Yes, that's called "doing what a significant majority of your voters want." Again. I don't know why that's such a foreign concept.
Retroactive correction
I actually misspoke on the first comment and double checked my source. Progressives are 12% of the left, which comes to 6% of the overall population. Despite how overwhelmingly popular progressives consider themselves to be, they are a very small minority on the national stage. Like vanishingly small. Catering to their priorities at the expense of everyone else's would be patently ridiculous and a surefire way out of office in all but the smallest Congressional districts.
So…. 72% of democrats is too low of a number for government run healthcare for the DNC to care? What happened to doing what a significant majority of your voters want?
Hell even private, still ensuring healthcare for everyone is still a majority.
Also, man you tell me vote if I want to matter then tell me I don’t matter. Which is it. That progressives as a whole need to vote if they want to matter? Literally the group by your own polls data you were using that votes the most. Like lol.
Anyways, again, while it may only be 6% as I’ve been saying we do not need a perfect representative. I do not expect a fucking communist president. Just do some of the extremely popular progressive platforms such as healthcare for all or etc. then do your normal liberal shit for everything else idgaf. But if you want to lose 12% of your base then whatever. Hope you pick up enough republicans I guess. Have fun with that. But don’t be surprised that the single group that has the highest % voter turnout ignores you when you actively antagonize them, shit on their ideals, and tell them they don’t matter, while simultaneously blaming them when you lose, and suing any party that represents them off ballots. Thanks for reminding me not to let them have my vote because they don’t deserve shit when they pull shit like this trying to pretend progressives don’t matter tho. I was almost on the fence.
Yes, and did you also see that independents are split 50-50? Even if you got 100% of Democrats you'd still lose scores of swing states without independents, whose views are much more nuanced. It's also important for national campaigns to identify exactly who those voters are. If that 72% will vote for you no matter what, but the remaining 26% will vote GOP or sit out if you push too aggressively toward government-run healthcare, then again it's political suicide to cater exclusively to them. Unfortunately the healthcare debate doesn't exist in a vacuum. Democrats went pretty far out on a limb with the ACA and still paid dearly over the next few election cycles.
I'm telling you that your personal preferences aren't the only thing a politician cares about. They care about public opinion in aggregate. Your personal opinions are irrelevant to this discussion because they don't always reflect majority opinion, and national politics is a game played at the margins in only a handful of states.
They need to organize at the grassroots level, get involved in party politics, and expand their coalition. Majority coalitions are difficult to build but also difficult to disentangle once they're established.
In 2020 and increasingly so, yes. But farther back that wasn't necessarily true. The coalitions who have the most influence now are more or less holdovers from the 1990s and 2000s. Engagement along the ideological spectrum didn't really start changing until after Obama, and you're currently part of an active realignment. That doesn't mean you'll get everything you want right out of the gate, though.
Two things. First, I haven't actually told you how I identify or what I believe. I'm simply telling you how progressives are or aren't represented in major voter statistics. Second, if you zoom out a bit (like multiple decades) you'll find that the Democratic Party has actually made significant strides leftward in terms of abortion rights, healthcare, unions, and green energy investment. Sure for every major accomplishment there's another drawback or step in the wrong direction (investment in green energy but ALSO fossil fuels, for example), but a cruise ship cannot be steered on a dime. Dramatic shifts take time, and coalitions take years and decades to form or dissolve.
Again, this has nothing to do with me. Not sure why you're so wedded to this being an ideological battle between the two of us, as opposed to an observation about national realities. Progressives are not a majority in this country or the Democratic Party. That means they have to be creative and deliberate in how they influence elections. It also means they're often not going to get what they want, but that's ok because nobody gets what they want.
Anyway, it's clear you take this very personally, so I'll leave it there.
The rest of the world doesn't care about your internal politics. Fix your stupid country and stop supporting genocide.