this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
742 points (90.6% liked)

politics

19241 readers
2259 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's what US democracy is. In a lot of countries, you get to vote for people who represent you, and the system works out stopping people who are widely disliked by parties forming coalitions after the vote.

Look at the NL, and how it deals with a Trump-like candidate. He got a plurality of the vote, yet is unable to form a government because none of the other parties cooperate.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Great. We're not in the NL. That's not how it works here.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's my point, this is how the US works, this is not how democracy in general works. OP was saying that these faults are a natural consequence and inseparable from democracy. I'm bringing up a counterexample. It can be done better.

I think we agree on that the US system is incapable of stopping such a wildly unpopular candidate if they reach a plurality of the votes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Right, I'm just trying to head off the ridiculous idea that some people have that in the US we can vote for our ideal candidate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

There's a difference between voting for an ideal candidate and not being able to vote for one materially supporting a genocide. "not funding genocide" isn't an ideal, it's a bare minimum. If not funding genocide is 'idealistic' to you, then I want no part of anything you're trying to sell and normalize.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

“not funding genocide” isn’t an ideal, it’s a bare minimum.

Doesn't matter, that option is not one of the two choices.

It's "try to restrain the genocide" or "make genocide worse". Pick one. And if you say they're equally bad, you're an idiot.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Who's trying to restrain the genocide? Last I checked Biden says nice things then does nothing but send more weapons?

Doesn’t matter, that option is not one of the two choices.

This is the cause of voter apathy btw, when you tell people there's no way to stop genocide, they're not going to feel like they can effect change. And when voter apathy sets in democrats lose. Democrats know this, yet pursue political avenues that foster voter apathy. I live in a blue state, nothing I can do will save the Democrats from themselves.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

You want Democrats to singlehandedly change the First Past the Post voting system?