632
We'll have a long memory as things get worse for working class Americans, minorities and women
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
632 points (73.7% liked)
Political Memes
5492 readers
1931 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is the system though. Democracy isn't really about getting what you want. That's impossible under any system other than a dictatorship where you are the dictator. Parasocial psychology has lead a lot of people thinking that Trump getting what he wants is what they want. But that won't work out well for anyone.
Democracy is really about removing the worst people from power and preventing them from getting power in the first place. Over many years in something akin to natural selection you can have progress. But like evolution, it goes slowly.
Voting third party isn't a brave choice, it's just a fantasy. Even in a proportional representation system, it's still a fantasy, just you'd see maybe a few powerless people sitting in a legislature complaining on C-Span (which nobody will watch) instead of on social media.
Politics is about power and compromise. Vote for a representative that has a reasonable chance of winning, and write to them to encourage them to compromise closer to your position on things. That's actually effective, people that go on about a fantasy world where they just tick a box and whatever they want will happen are just being silly.
Voting is the feedback part of the system. If people aren't voting honestly, politicians will take the wrong feedback. For example, democrats thinking they should move to the center to reach more republicans, rather than moving the the left to reach more third party voters.
The feedback part of the system is actually writing (or calling, or participating in public forums) to your representative. Voting is about choosing a representative that will most likely consider your point of view.
To the left of the Democrats are unreliable voters and everyone knows that. They might vote Democrat, or third party, or be "uncommitted" depending on whatever meme they last saw on social media. The Democrats know that which is why they aren't putting a lot of effort to get those votes because it likely won't bear any fruit. The GOP knows that too, which is why they fund people like Jill Stein.
Obviously the Democrats are going to shift right to try to entice reliable voters to vote for them. People that are a little more mature and are not living in a fantasy world where voting third party or being uncommitted are going to have any kind of positive outcome. People that understand the system well enough to know that you're supposed to vote for someone that could feasibly win, and then write about their concerns to their representative rather than spending all day whining on social media about the system not being what they want it to be.
I disagree, the feedback comes after their actions, not before.
As for why the democrats aren't pursuing third party voters, is because to do so would run afoul of AIPAC, and they can get politicians removed from office. Thats something your average voter cannot do. Democrats are hoping to ignore the issue as best they can until after the election, a real lose-lose.
You are right they are moving right to get voters but not based on maturity or likelihood to vote. They are simply moving right because thats where the numbers are, which is why I argue that the bigger the third parties are the more of a counter balance that is until it tips into a three party system.
If you can get past antisemitic conspiracy theories about AIPAC you'll find out it's a group of Jewish American citizens and they have exactly as much right to representation as you do. There are a lot of people in the pro-Palestinian movement that are in this "uncommitted" movement which is an attempt to threaten politicians with removal from office if they don't change foreign policy to help their side in a foreign conflict. How is what the pro-Palestinian movement is trying to do any different from what AIPAC does? The only difference is AIPAC is significantly more competent at doing what the pro-Palestinian movement is trying to do. Also the pro-Palestinian movement has an antisemitism problem that they're in denial of which means they're doing nothing to address. So it's obvious to any politician which of these groups they'll be happy to associate with and which group they'll generally avoid. The pro-Palestinian movement has to fix their problems to be able to have any kind of influence.
Third parties are simply not viable in the current system. There is a proposal to have ranked choice voting at least for congress, but it's currently lacking the votes needed to pass. That would make third parties at least possible in congress. I'll give you one guess about which party has proposed it.
Its shocking how little you understand what is happening in Israel and Palestine, but I'm tired today so have a nice day.
I've written to many of my state and federal legislators over the span of 20+ years. it's not effective. We need campaign finance before, we need to overturn citizens United, and we need to change our two party system.
I understand your perspective but I disagree on some points.
"Even in a proportional representation system"
In a proportional system votes for other candidates aren't lost tho, which means it doesn't force a two party system by design.
I don't think it is stated enough how horribly weak the current US one seat FPTP system is.
Proportional representation grants all power to political parties and eliminates the representative nature that a community representation (what you call FPTP) system offers. And the votes of the parties that aren't in the ruling coalition are lost and therefore the votes of anyone that voted for those parties are also lost.
You dont even get a representative by 2., 3. and 4. candidate votes in the 1 seat districts. Your vote is actually worth zero if it doesn't win. My 7th party vote goes towards a party representative that can voice my cause. My vote is not lost at all.
You always have a representative in a community representation system. It may not be the person you voted for, but there is someone that's supposed to represent your community. If they don't do a good job of that then they get voted out in the next election. Parties don't want to lose seats so they're incentivized to pick people that are capable of representing community interests. This is why you get oddities where people like Josh Hawley speaking loudly against programs like FEMA, but also accepting FEMA money when his district needs it. Push comes to shove, they have to represent their communities.
Also because the seat belongs to the person (not the party as in a PR system) a party could lose a seat even between elections if they fail to serve the interests of a community. So if a party is doing something that's really bad for your community, then you may not even wait until the next election for them to lose a seat.
In a PR system, you vote for a party that isn't part of the ruling coalition, you have no representation at all. Because it's not a good representative system. The power lies solely in the parties forming the ruling coalition, If you can get 50% + 1 votes for your party by screwing over minorities your party rules the country. PR systems have more of a tendency towards radical right wing politics because there's less need to represent minority interests. In a Community Representation system if even five members of a party are in close districts in communities with a significant number of minorities that might be the deciding factor that can change party policy.
And this isn't really theoretical either. The EU is PR and has countries leaving because they don't feel represented and they've taking a turn towards the extreme right. Israel has a PR system and it's current ruling coalition is made up of a right wing party that has to make concessions to extreme right parties to stay in power. Before claiming PR is better than a community representation system then I suggest closing the spreadsheet for a few minutes and look at the real world track record of PR systems. I've had conversations with people in Europe that are a little jealous of us for having community representation.
Of course any democratic system will fail without participation of the people. So make sure you go and vote.
That's a weird take on politics. "Hitler comes from my place so he represents me."
As a non-EU European I vote on country politics at the national elections, and local politics at the county elections. That way I have local representation in local matters, and national representation at national matters.
The current right wing surge in Europe is mostly because people don't like the amount of Muslim immigrants and most countries have only far right parties that rides on that matter. Plus Russian influence I assume.
You do not get a good political landscape with one seat districts that can even be gerrymandered. Every fucking US state house is divided in DEM and REP, that's not healthy.