this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
767 points (89.9% liked)
Memes
49996 readers
1099 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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
They said the same thing about every Republican as what they say about Trump. If you live your entire life in hyperbole people get desensitized.
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.
All it does is make the political bribery slightly more expensive.
I disagree, i think it makes it possible for 3rd parties to succeed, maybe not in practice, but at least theoretically, which is a worthwhile change. But let's grant that that's all it does... that's still a good thing and not worth opposing.
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.
Yup, I agree with all this, but i don't see it as a reason to oppose better election systems.
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
I started asking questions whenever some right winger would start in with the whole “here’s what you’re doing wrong” routine. “And you think this will help the far left succeed?” or “So you believe that’s the best way to get people to vote for the leftist candidate?” Just messing around since they are obviously not providing legitimate feedback.
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
Edit: replied to the wrong comment
load more comments
(15 replies)
"Erm acturally thats tankie propaganda, dont you know our Good Guy Candidate™ isnt Fascist he's actually Fascist Lite™ which is totally different. Yes he's going to blindly support genocide, yes he's going to support imperialism, and no he wont do a damn thing to help the workers, but you see these silly graphs we made up say the economy is going and therefore our guy is qualified. Now blindly support the candidate and the party or I'll downvote you and call you a Tankie or a Russian bot."
- Average .world user
Democrats are center right these days.
Center right? You're giving them too much credit
Always have been.
I don't think this is correct. There was a marked post-Reagan shift to the right. Sure, they were never socialists, but decades ago they at least tried to do something for the working class.
I'd argue them being centre-left between 1929 and 1973, from the start of the great depression up until the petrodollar agreement and Bretton Woods II, out of fear communism winning during that time.
FDR was in that era and was pretty far left. Look at the tax rates he set in motion, the fuckers get mad when they get taxed over 90%. FDR gets elected four terms, has five assassination attempts and many more plots and starts the economy on the path to recovery after the Republicans decimated it with tatmriffs.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›