this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
232 points (72.9% liked)
Memes
45173 readers
1660 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, and it's stupid to suggest they would.
Whos this then?
https://raskin.house.gov/2024/9/raskin-beyer-welch-bill-would-bring-ranked-choice-voting-to-congressional-elections-across-america
I bet dems would be more open to ranked choice if more people voted for third parties, because as long as the population believes they must vote Democrat or Republican and no one else, neither of those parties have any incentive to change. If lesser evilism stops getting people to vote for the two ruling parties, then there would be incentive for them to change. Short of that you're relying on politicians to do the right thing instead of the profitable thing, which is a fools game.
The problem is really that republicans keep putting up the worst possible candidates and policies. If the choice was "A sort of bad candidate or another sort of bad candidate", we'd all happily vote third party and if the slightly-worse-but-not-appreciably-so candidate won as a result, it wouldn't be a huge hurdle and over a few election cycles we could maybe effect change.
Instead, in that scenario, it leads to Trump and Project 2025 and I'd love to hear your explanation of how that helps us get progressive candidates into office, because I just don't see it.
I'm a "single issue voter" and that "single issue" is that I don't want another Trump presidency, so I'll vote strategically to prevent that from happening, even if I'd much rather have someone else.
You do realize that that's why the DNC is currently getting away scot-free with genocide, right? Is there a line in the sand somewhere for you?
I'm so sick of this horrible take. You do realize that, of the two candidates who have a chance to win this election, neither are good for Palestine, but one is worse, right? It's not like Donald Fucking Trump is out there campaigning on cutting off arms to Israel and supporting Palestine.
You give me an actual viable candidate who has a chance of actually winning an election in the US and I'll give them my vote, but right now, what're you proposing? Voting third party? Why, exactly? Do you only value "taking a stand", or are you actually trying to do what's in everyone's best interest?
If you (you being a member of voters at large) will go along with genocide so easily, completely turning a blind eye, what incentive is there for either party to present an alternative?
How do you expect to walk your party over to your side if your vote for them is guaranteed, and you ask absolutely nothing of them, as long as the other party is worse, which is all but guaranteed for the foreseeable future?
It's already the worst case scenario. You either support genocide or you don't. Your constant shouting "but it'll get worse though!1!!" isn't really pertinent to the conversation when we are already looking at complete annihilation of Gaza and the Palestinians that live there.
What democracy is there to be saved if we are already at the point of "vote for us or else" with Trump and project 2025 being held like a gun to our heads? All of the progress being made towards that eventuality; losses in bodily autonomy and voting access being only a couple examples; not showing any signs of slowing down even under a democratic administration?
A vote should be won, not coerced. Simple as. Not even asking for an alternative makes you complicit in the fact that there is none.
It's not like I'm sitting here actively supporting the genocide. I've been speaking out against Israel since this conflict started. Look, here I am being critical of Israel 10 months ago.
But I'm going to level with you - if I was going to choose a single issue to base my vote on, it wouldn't be this. It would be climate change. I'd throw in my cap with whomever had the most decisive, immediate plan to cut fossil fuels and major pollutants, enact climate-friendly policies, and put 100% of our budget and focus into reversing as much of the damage we've caused as possible, because I think that's a much bigger issue than Gaza, or Ukraine, or anything else.
Compared to that, which is a global problem, I think any individual nation's conflicts are pretty trivial. It trumps genocide, it trumps fascism, it trumps everything.
Do you not see that this dynamic just as much allows complete inaction on climate change as it allows the democratic candidates to arm Israel as they commit genocide? You're using that word, "more", as if you have any choice than continuing the status quo (complete environmental destruction) or worse in some miniscule way complete environmental destruction.
Again. How do you expect your elected representative to care about passing real, thoughtful, progressive policy on climate change if the only thing they have to do to earn your vote is make sure their opponent doesn't lose the shovel being used to dig your grave?
Palestine is just the most present and distinct issue which should be an easy slam dunk to show that Democrats care at all about winning voters over or slowing down our recent regression; the undecided movement being a clearly defined group of voters that can be convinced to vote Democrat this election without a clear group of votes that would be lost as a consequence of meeting their asks.
Even pretending the genocide is a non-issue, Trump should be the easiest man in history to beat in an election. Everybody hates the guy, everyone just wants rid of him, and issue-by-issue he manages to take the most unpopular, easily debunked stances that for some reason the Democrats keep conceding narratives to without putting up a fight. But he motivates his voters.
Whether or not you agree with the undecideds, you should be rooting for them. The first rule of negotiation is to be willing to walk away, but the one before that is to bring something to the table worth negotiating for. By not engaging, Kamala is clearly demonstrating to us that; even with everything that group has brought to the table; there is not anything that, to her, is worth negotiating for. What can you bring then? That is not democracy. That's a lose-lose situation and you can't fault the voters for being disillusioned by it.
Does Trump have fascist magic that makes the bipartisan bombs stronger? Does Kamala have neoliberal magic that makes the bipartisan bombs weaker? Neither will be worse than the other for Palestine.
Even if it were the case that both were exactly identical, then you'd have to admit that your vote won't matter for Palestine, and you should base it on other factors, so why don't you tell me which of Trump's policies you're okay with having in exchange for the opportunity to take the idealistic stance in this election?
We can sit here and quote conflicting sources at each other all night, and it's clear that neither of us is going to sway the other, so we probably should just shake hands and agree to disagree, but fuck it, I'm not doing anything else, so I'll start. Here's one. Okay, your turn.
My point is that if the only thing you care about is not electing a Republican, the ratchet effect will mean the DNC will eventually become so right wing they commit genocide. Oh, shit...
Where along the DNC's journey to the right do you hop off? Is it never? When do you hop off the electoral trend and join the Revolutionary trend?
And what is this revolutionary trend doing? Is there a plan? Because "let's get Trump elected and hope for the best" really isn't a great pitch
There are multiple revolutionary parties you can join, if you want to. They all have mission statements, and none of them are "let's get Trump elected and hope for the best."
Ok. Which is yours? What's your pitch?
I recommend looking into the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) as well as Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), I've linked their programs. They operate differently, but have national presense. There are local orgs you can join as well.
When we have a viable progressive candidate. Until then, I'm going to continue being a pragmatist and vote for the candidate that I think is better among those who have a chance to win, rather than waste my vote trying to make an idealistic point.
What edge could a progressive candidate possibly have electorally if the so-called progressives are so whipped that they'll support literally anyone who isn't nominally a Republican? You need to think beyond one election cycle.
If Trump and the GOP have their way, there won't be another election cycle. Maybe you need to think beyond this one, too.
Alright, think beyond one election cycle without being cowed by ridiculous alarmism. The status quo is great for Republicans, they'll continue to do their christo-fascist thing, but the idea that they'll just overturn elections is ridiculous and not founded in anything but an offhand comment Trump made that gets interpreted hysterically (what he probably meant was that, if elected, he would hit the term limit and he doesn't give a shit about whoever the next Republican is). If Trump was really passionate about being an autocrat, the Capitol riot would have been much more than the clown show it turned out as.
Gotcha, I'll watch while you goosestep with 99% Hitler instead of lifting a finger to stop anything because 99% Hitler is running against 100% Hitler, and 99% Hitler is acceptable to you. Pragmatic, even.
Well, I guess this conversation is 99% over, then.
Wait, does genocide not count for you if the victims are Muslims? Or are you denying that there is Palestinian Genocide right now, and America is supplying it? Which is it?