this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
287 points (79.2% liked)

Memes

47387 readers
1375 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. 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
[–] [email protected] 25 points 16 hours ago (7 children)

I don't understand why people who think this don't advocate for ranked choice voting. Seems like it would solve this issue, right?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 minutes ago

They won't allow it because they'll lose power with ranked choice.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

I do advocate for it, I'm a proud member of the Forward Party.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

It doesn't. There are plenty of bourgeois democracies that don't use FPTP for all their voting: Japan, Australia, South Korea for some of their elections. Doesn't make a difference (except it might make the bribery a bit more expensive, since you have to buy off more political parties than just two).

The fundamental problem is capital standing above political power. If it does so, then no amount of alternative voting systems can fix the issue. Socialism is the only answer.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

No, RCV wouldn't. The fundamental problem of electoral politics being a game between factions pre-approved by the bourgeoisie won't change, there are even safeguards preventing unwanted change that losing parties and government branches can pull in the rare event a worker party won.

It's the perfect carrot, it won't get passed nor would it change much.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Even if it would, how would it ever get passed when the people who would need to pass it are the ones who are only in office because the system works the way it currently does?

This is just a recurring theme I've found when talking with liberals. They like to think about and suggest all sorts of policy ideas as though all we're missing are some smart ideas nobody has thought of. It's one thing to say we should have this, but it's another to have any idea of how it'd be possible to do. Since they have no actual analysis of the system, they'll just turn around and tell you to vote or call your representative. "We should get money out of politics!" "Yeah, well we checked with the people giving us money and they said no. So..."

[–] [email protected] 20 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You have a few options for enacting ranked choice voting at the national level:

  1. Win hundreds, possibly thousands, of state-level House and Senate seats with the largest grass roots voter mobilization ever seen in the US to, a) enact legislation in all 50 states or b) ratify an amendment to the constitution, that mandates it.

  2. Kill enough republicans in a national civil war to make sure that when elections happen, there aren't enough republicans left to win an election, then enact the above.

  3. Overthrow the entire US government in a much bloodier national coup and set up whatever government you want.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Kill enough republicans in a national civil war

And democrats, too. Don't pretend they're not just as responsible for keeping fptp voting, their party depends on it. If you don't believe me, look into how coordinated the GOP and Democrats were when suing PSL and the Green party to keep them off several state ballots (and severely whittle down their grassroots funds with corporate-money lawfare). Spoiler: there was no overlap.

It's one party, two wings.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 14 hours ago

Imma be real as an European, we kinda have the same problem here even with better voting systems. You either vote for "nothing ever happens" parties or literal Russia funded reactionary nazis.