It’s called “compromise” to make progress. Giving up allows the situation you’re complaining about to only get worse.
We have to change our voting system in order to break out of the two party system, and only one of the two parties have people that support changing our voting system for the better. So, as shitty as it is, not voting Democrat is effectively voting against your own interests.
Dems have to do something beyond sad attempts at change if they want my vote. Oh what, if i don’t fall in line the republicans will win? Wow i guess the democratic party will need to become significantly more progressive.
Get over the fact that the DNC is not perfect. Voting Democrat is literally the only option to implement voting practices that will eventually break out of the two party system. The Republicans are actively doing their best to remove your power to vote.
Without trying to sound contentious, how is voting for one of the two major parties supposed to help break out of the two party system? Have the Democrats ever put forward any kind of legislation supporting things like eliminating first-past-the-post?
To be clear, I don’t disagree that the Dems are the lesser of two devils in this election but I don’t know if it’s fair to waive a banner of hope for either party at this point.
electoral college and first past the post helps republicans and hurts democrats… if you want systemic change, vote for the party that has the most to gain from the systemic change you’d like to see, and then work to make that systemic change happen
democrats almost always win the popular vote… the electoral college is part of the mechanism that gives smaller states that tend to be more republican greater voting power than larger states
and as far as FPTP, third party candidate votes tend toward more democratic candidates. given the spoiler effect (a 3rd party candidate draws the most votes from the 2 party candidate they’re closest to: if they didn’t run, most of their votes would have gone to their closest candidate. given they’re unlikely to win due to how the mathematics and sociology of voting systems work, a successful 3rd party candidate is always bad for their voters), that means that if RCV or similar were implemented, on balance those votes for 3rd parties would mean democrats get more votes
This hypothetical is based on ranked choice voting being suddenly implemented everywhere at once.
We also need to fix the gerrymandering, as well as the overall vote-limiting laws, in red states which would drastically change how those states appear within the scope of the electoral college. Ranked choice voting would greatly help with that.
What is the point of voting at all if you’re not going to vote for either of the two people who actually has a chance of winning?
No one knows who you vote for. At best, it’s a pointless personal moral victory that no one else will be aware of. You can literally stay home and just tell people you voted for someone and they won’t be any the wiser.
So why bother? To fractionally increase the vast margin your candidate is still going to lose by?
So we’re supposed to keep voting for the same center right libs for eternity? The party leaders of the Democrats will never allow things like ranked choice voting because it takes power away from them. I do agree with you that at the local and state levels Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to support RCV, however with the federal Democrats in power nothing will change.
This is the slippery slope fallacy. Regardless of why you are saying this, it’s an idea that Republicans are pushing to get people to believe.
There is no reason to believe that the DNC won’t change, particularly as the ones you say fear taking their power away are old and cannot maintain this grip of power from the grave.
It’s inevitable that the parties will change, and the GOP have shown the direction they want to change towards.
It’s called “compromise” to make progress. Giving up allows the situation you’re complaining about to only get worse.
We have to change our voting system in order to break out of the two party system, and only one of the two parties have people that support changing our voting system for the better. So, as shitty as it is, not voting Democrat is effectively voting against your own interests.
Dems have to do something beyond sad attempts at change if they want my vote. Oh what, if i don’t fall in line the republicans will win? Wow i guess the democratic party will need to become significantly more progressive.
Get over the fact that the DNC is not perfect. Voting Democrat is literally the only option to implement voting practices that will eventually break out of the two party system. The Republicans are actively doing their best to remove your power to vote.
Without trying to sound contentious, how is voting for one of the two major parties supposed to help break out of the two party system? Have the Democrats ever put forward any kind of legislation supporting things like eliminating first-past-the-post?
To be clear, I don’t disagree that the Dems are the lesser of two devils in this election but I don’t know if it’s fair to waive a banner of hope for either party at this point.
Handing power over to proto-fascists would do more to end the two party system. But who actually thinks that’s a good idea?
Where I live the democrats are trying to implement ranked choice voting. I’m certain my state isn’t the only one.
electoral college and first past the post helps republicans and hurts democrats… if you want systemic change, vote for the party that has the most to gain from the systemic change you’d like to see, and then work to make that systemic change happen
Please explain.
democrats almost always win the popular vote… the electoral college is part of the mechanism that gives smaller states that tend to be more republican greater voting power than larger states
and as far as FPTP, third party candidate votes tend toward more democratic candidates. given the spoiler effect (a 3rd party candidate draws the most votes from the 2 party candidate they’re closest to: if they didn’t run, most of their votes would have gone to their closest candidate. given they’re unlikely to win due to how the mathematics and sociology of voting systems work, a successful 3rd party candidate is always bad for their voters), that means that if RCV or similar were implemented, on balance those votes for 3rd parties would mean democrats get more votes
This hypothetical is based on ranked choice voting being suddenly implemented everywhere at once.
We also need to fix the gerrymandering, as well as the overall vote-limiting laws, in red states which would drastically change how those states appear within the scope of the electoral college. Ranked choice voting would greatly help with that.
What is the point of voting at all if you’re not going to vote for either of the two people who actually has a chance of winning?
No one knows who you vote for. At best, it’s a pointless personal moral victory that no one else will be aware of. You can literally stay home and just tell people you voted for someone and they won’t be any the wiser.
So why bother? To fractionally increase the vast margin your candidate is still going to lose by?
Somebody doesn’t understand basic game theory.
Yes, that would be you.
So we’re supposed to keep voting for the same center right libs for eternity? The party leaders of the Democrats will never allow things like ranked choice voting because it takes power away from them. I do agree with you that at the local and state levels Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to support RCV, however with the federal Democrats in power nothing will change.
This is the slippery slope fallacy. Regardless of why you are saying this, it’s an idea that Republicans are pushing to get people to believe.
There is no reason to believe that the DNC won’t change, particularly as the ones you say fear taking their power away are old and cannot maintain this grip of power from the grave.
It’s inevitable that the parties will change, and the GOP have shown the direction they want to change towards.
You don’t compromise with terrorists.