There’s a “Vote No on Ranked Choice Voting” sign on my way to work.
Someone just needs to paint over the word ‘no’
I’m not sure if it’s legal to deface political signs like that.
Edit: it’s very much not
Oh no
So anyway
We are not them.
Moralism, or: how to let “civility” get in the way of stopping fascism.
War would be a lot easier if we chose to do away with pesky restrictions like the Geneva convention, but would you be proud to be on the side that dropped white phosphorus on an elementary school to win? Would you prefer that we start making up lies and false rumors about Trump and Co? Restraint is difficult; I understand that, put the resulting clean victory is the most lasting kind.
You’re comparing defacing fascist propaganda to using white phosphorous on an Elementary School. I want you to read that sentence very carefully.
You’re comparing defacing fascist propaganda to using white phosphorous on an Elementary School.
Now that we have stressed the absurdity of such a comparison, you have to understand that if the enemy is genuinely dangerous, then you need to respond in kind.
Isn’t what they established in Alaska thanks in large part to democrats???
Linkerbean: usual concern trolling and anti-democrat talking points
Me: You’re just a republican troll trying to get left leaning folk to not vote for democrats
Linkerbean (and I quote exactly): Cope.
Me: …
Linkerbean: <deletes comment>I don’t even know what you said before but it’s pretty amazing you’re proudly boasting about a comment with zero content calling users republican trolls.
It’s amazing how close they get to making good points before veering off into “Dems bad, do <thing that gets Republicans more power>.”
Ah today’s bothsidesism
Gotta give people their Two Minutes Hate or they might remember that voting for Democrats is, for most Americans, the actual least evil option on November 5.
Someone’s unwillingness to implement an effective solution doesn’t make an ineffective solution the answer.
The way forward on this is hounding them until they implement it, not fighting the math:
If a solution doesn’t have a realistic path to implementation, it doesn’t matter. The system itself is designed against change, RCV is something neither party actually wants.
Some few Democrats or states are allowed to support it as far as it gives RCV supporters some semblence of power, without actually pressuring the system.
Even if RCV was implemented, and a Third Party candidate won, the 2 establishment parties would work against any radical change.
It pressures the system in those cities or states, which is actual pressure to the system, just not direct pressure on the federal government. History shows you can mount pressure through local and state changes until it gets overwhelming support on a federal level.
You can make the argument there might be more effective or quicker solutions, but this is unquestionably one path toward it.
My point is that tiny, inconsequential pressure is allowed so that you think it applies pressure. Whenever it gets close to making a difference, it won’t.
You say that with a lot of certainty, but without any evidence to back it up. If history is any indication, lasting change is won from the bottom-up. You have to get the masses at large on your side first and the best way to do it is to show them, in small steps, that it can be done and that it’s effective.
If history is any indication, lasting change is won from the bottom-up. You have to get the masses at large on your side first and the best way to do it is to show them, in small steps, that it can be done and that it’s effective.
This is the opposite of correct, the ruling class will never do something because it’s right or effective, but because they need to. Read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, you’re repeating the errors of the Owenites.
I don’t disagree that the ruling class won’t do something that doesn’t align with their interests. I’m saying that they will be forced to enact reforms once the political zeitgeist changes. The state has an exponentially larger capacity for violence than us. Our only viable option is the threat of non co-operation. The nuance lies in doing it in a way that we don’t lose the progress we have already made. That means aligning with the Democratic Party until we have enough political capital to form a viable third party. Owen was apolitical, I am not.
I’m saying that they will be forced to enact reforms once the political zeitgeist changes.
Are you suggesting genuine revolutionary pressure, or suggesting that public opinion meaningfully sways the parties?
The state has an exponentially larger capacity for violence than us.
Correct.
Our only viable option is the threat of non co-operation.
Not sure what this means, are you suggesting working outside the electoral system, or within it?
The nuance lies in doing it in a way that we don’t lose the progress we have already made. That means aligning with the Democratic Party until we have enough political capital to form a viable third party.
Where does this political Capital come from? How do you grow it if not working with Third Parties to begin with?
More importantly, if we side with the Dems, why does that increase the political capital of leftists? The GOP will not go away, even if the party itself crumbles, what will replace it will be another far-right party, because the material conditions for that remain as long as we continue to exist in decaying Capitalism.
Owen was apolitical, I am not.
Not sure what this means.
Out of curiosity, what do you consider yourself? Marxist, Anarchist, Liberal, etc.?
if they wont give us what we want or need they dont deserve our votes, maybe next time they will offer more than “im not the other guy”, if the democrats will not be pushed left then they should be destroyed.
You are correct, but everyone is too afraid to work together to find a better candidate/ new party. We no longer can organize ourselves. We can only be organized by institutions apparently. I’d love to be proven wrong on this but watch how much resistance you get. Just trying to suggest that maybe we could do better. ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
In order for politics to align towards your values you have to vote for the candidate closest to them, which forces the losing parties to get closer or die, which pushes the winning party to move towards you.
If you throw away or don’t vote none of that happens because you have no impact.
This is wrong. The parties don’t see the views of the people that vote for them, just that they recieved more or fewer votes. If Leftists vote Dem 100% of the time, then the Dems will never move any more to the Left, because they already have their vote.
To the surprise of nobody Republicans also don’t support a voting system that would end the Democrat-Republican duopoly.
Progressive Democrats will and do. Neoliberal ones do not as they only care about the donor class
My city had ranked choice voting implemented by Democrats in the 1970s. They elected the first black mayor, who is still one of our most beloved mayors in the city’s history, under RCV.
Then Republicans made it illegal at a state level when they had a trifecta. Democrats keep introducing bills at the state level to allow RCV, and Republicans take more and more drastic action against it. So yeah… I want more Democrats in my state government so we can have RCV.
Why don’t you name the city and mayor?
Because I didn’t think it particularly important for countering this same old tired BS. But if you really want to know, it’s Ann Arbor, MI and the mayor was Albert Wheeler.
ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
This is a few people not the party as a whole.
Notably there is a platform out there for the Democratic candidate. Unless I missed something RCV is not on the agenda.
Do those goalposts have little feet on them?
“Democrats wouldn’t do this”
Democrats do this
“No, not like that”
Look, I said it in a dumb meme format so you know it’s true
(I appreciate you for posting here, just making fun of you 😊)
This is like saying Republicans oppose sending weapons to israel because Thomas Massie exists.
The meme says implement. If you think a small minority of a party can implement RCV you don’t understand how the system works.
Especially if you actually look into what was linked and see that this is not the first time. The Democratic party has already shot it down in the past.
Implement doesn’t mean “manifest from the aether with zero work”. It means do every step until it’s done. This is like step 5 of a lot.
So three of the more than 250 elected democrats are trying, not for the first time by the way, to get the rest of their party to take it seriously. Talk to me when more than 2% of the Democrats do something about it because otherwise its basically just a platitude.
Meaningful RCV implementation and meaningful gun control in the US are like talking about alien contact. Fun to talk about, but it’s not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.
To be fair, the US Empire is likely to collapse in our lifetimes, so meaningful gun control and RCV may be a part of whatever replaces the US Empire.
That’s optomisitic man. I forsee more of a mad max kinda thing.
Depends on how well Leftists organize, or don’t.
Bills are often started by one or a few people to get voted on by others. It will be resisted, but not by the side that would do well with a ranked choice with other left-sided third parties.
That would make more sense if this was their first time putting this bill forward, but it’s not. They’ve tried this before and none of the other Democrats could be chuffed to stand behind it. This isn’t new.
Bills don’t often get passed on the first try. If anything you should be critical that this is only the second time, it ought to be a constant attempt to change a system that seemingly everyone not making a profit from is against. I’ll also say that the only way anything like this will get passed is through the left, the right does not want everyone to get a vote. So it will likely fail again somewhere unless the ratio of left-right shifts. As is true of any bills that favor the public good.
Right on. Once the republicans have enough of a majority they will deal with all these voting problems.
kinda ironic I saw this post right after this other one lol: Three Democrats Re-Introduce Bill That Would Bring Ranked Choice Voting to Congressional Elections Across America
Those three Democrat are focusing on the thing all of the Democrats and Republicans should.
oh yes the standard reply.
Rs actively tearing it down like in Alaska
Ds putting forth a bill to do it but only started by three of them this time around
“both sides are the same!”
yawn
Did you even read what I wrote?
Those few Dems are clearly the ones pushing this. But that it should be bipartisan and should have more support in general has nothing to do with false equivocation.
The irony here, though, is that because of your partisan BS, you clearly interpreted that as an insult to the Democrats.
No, and it’s stupid to suggest they would.
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?
Some will at small, minor levels, but never enough to cause a serious threat. It’s like how it’s socially permissible and legal to make worker co-operatives and the like, the fact that it’s non-threatening to the status quo keeps it a useful carrot that will never arrive at a scale that causes drastic change.
I guess the reason they won’t is to avoid the “there’s 5 different left parties” meme moment.
New York City established Ranked Choice voting in 2020 under a Dem Mayor and majority Dem City Council.
deleted by creator
Does this mean that by voting Republican we can secure abortion rights? The answer is no.
Actually, by your own post, in Alaska it does.
