• smb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      a system where you get served only two options to vote for but are held responsible for the outcome instead of those who limited the available options in the first place?

      eh yes, you are right, this is stupid.

      as a completely unrelated sidenote:

      “winner takes it all” is the actual opposite of democracy, no matter how the voting was done, and this fact can already be read 1:1 within those 4 simple words 😉

      • Pavel Chichikov@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        this is stupid too. Democracy is mathematically impossible. Condorcet’s paradox and all that.

        • smb@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Democracy is mathematically impossible.

          if democracy was not possible, how does it come that the greek did democracy and it is said they were once overrun in a war because of beeing democratic? if something was a cause for a turn of a war, i pretty much believe it to really exist, no matter what some kind of half baked formulars “predicted” once.

          if democracy existed and your math says thats not possible, i’ld guess your math might simply be ‘slightly’ wrong about it or was created with (un-)intentional biases in mind ;-)

          just to note:

          in the history of human predictions based on thought through and wordly/mathmatically described rules, the most common thing afterwards was, that those rules and also their predictions were just fundamentally wrong and biased.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Or we can go directly to the bottom frame like we’re gonna do - but go ahead and keep rationalizing why your moral pedestal was too lofty to vote for Kamala.

      • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        So you really think we’re better off with Bonespurs? Cuz realistically he was the only other viable choice, and reality trumps moral purity pedestals.

  • Floon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 days ago

    Too many commenters here do not understand anything about how any of it works, especially how first past the post voting works. Progressives do not seem to understand that the system has not rejected them, but the voters have.

    It is mostly relentless propaganda for the oligarchs that has captured the country. That’s the problem, and it is not fixed by any of the suggestions here.

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Voting for non evil is the way to go. By keeping to vote for the lesser evil, you get it to become more evil while keeping non evil out of power. This is how the system games you.

      • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        Yes! The problem is, non-evil is not currently on the menu. So I think one should limit the rate of evil increase by voting for the lesser evil.

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        I think depends on the voting system and the election. US has a really bad system with FPTP voting. In that case tactical voting should be used for governor and president but representatives should be voted by the heart to build up better support for third party candidates.

        It’s also very important to vote in primaries and and party national conventions because those votes affect national policies way more than the elections themselves.

        US is very presidential heavy but voting in local elections really counts and allows third parties to slowly build up enough support to create a hung parliament where voting system concessions can be made.

        • Saleh@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 days ago

          I like to think of it in a “market” way. By voting there is a signal into the market, that their is a demand for a certain political direction. So “stocks” with that profile increase in value. This might be individual politicians, specific laws, parties, or general ideology/values.

          Politicians want their portfolio to be attractive, so they get more votes. As a result they will adjust their portfolio of political positions accordingly.

          If you vote “tactically” you send a false signal into the market. So instead of getting more politicians to represent the ideas you like, you reinforce them in the ideas you don’t like, as that had more buy signals. On the flip side if you send your sell signal, by removing a formally loyal vote from them, you can show them that their portfolio has gotten lopsided.

          The difficulty is to think these things longer term. It is not just this election cycle, but 8 years, 12 years maybe even 20 years ahead. The way media and politicians like to represent elections got more and more pointed towards just this single one being the one and only. This is not just a problem in the US, but also countries without FPTP. Also the reporting got less about the specific policies and more about the how and who, turning it into a show of game of thrones, rather than a fight for the best ideas.

          • Caveman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            That’s all true, by voting for minor parties you do entice the established parties to grab some of their policies. This does not address the fact that in FPTP a fractured ideology loses because of the spoiler effect. If you get 5 parties with 10% vote share. Dems on 20% and Republicans on 30% it’s a Republican win even though their ideology doesn’t resonate with 70% of voters.

            You need tactical voting to get the majority of seats in this case also and in a situation where everyone would vote tactically against Republicans they will be pro voter reform since it’ll reduce the power of a united right wing.

    • Roopappy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      You are 100% correct.

      Look at OPs meme and ask the obvious question: “Why is this moving to the right, and not to the left? Aren’t both options equally possible?”

      The answer is that it moves to the side that wins elections.

      “Why is the right winning elections” is the much much better question to ask. In the meantime, do everything you can to move the center in the other direction one step at a time, and that doesn’t come about by losing elections while standing on principle.

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        That’s what I’ve always thought, it feels like the dems instead of compromising on ideology they should look for policies that benefit the rural Americans that feel increasingly excluded from the society happening in cities. Just throw them farming subsidies for small to mid sized farms, benefits for undeveloped land, agricultural loans for the energy transition to help them conform to new climate regulations.

        Then maybe even throw in benefits for rural fire departments and so on are all democrat ideology policies. When the right becomes unelectable people move left.

  • Dragon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 days ago

    IMO the only way around this problem in the USA is to either (A) get a third party to the point of legitimacy where people will take them seriously be winning seats in the house and senate, and eventually running for the presidency, or (B) win a primary in one of the two major parties. By election day there is nothing to do but vote for the least worst option.

  • banshee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Not sure this makes sense. I think the window shifts right as people continue to vote right.

    From the Wikipedia article about the Overton window:

    The most common misconception is that lawmakers themselves are in the business of shifting the Overton window. That is absolutely false. Lawmakers are actually in the business of detecting where the window is, and then moving to be in accordance with it.

  • LifeOfChance@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    Honestly I’m just at the point where I’m sitting back watching this country be torn apart. Everything anyone ever has done is wrong but also maybe it’s right and everyone acts like they know which is which. The country is entirely divided when the war within itself kicks off I’ll be just on my porch watching because I’m done trying to make heads or tails of this mess.

  • ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    Funny that a lot of people see this shit and immediately go but Dem and Rep, this shit applied for a lot of countries that have more than 2 parties. When the more popular parties are all shit people go with “lesser evil”.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    This is true, but it’s also STILL WORSE to vote for the greater evil. You need to change the options available to you to fix this.

    • scoredseqrica@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      lol, get this nerd. It’s not meant to be a scientific graph like a Moody diagram for calculating things from, it’s illustrating a concept which it does perfectly.

      • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Ok. So apply this to 2016. The left choice was establishment neoliberal who if had won would have put left leaning judges on the Supreme Court ensuring the court for decades. Since she lost a far right extremist won who captured the judicial branch. I guess this doesn’t count because people didn’t vote for the lesser evil. Or does it?

        So the following election again was establishment neoliberalism who won and basically had the most progressive policy’s of the last century. I guess that moved us right?

        Next election, let’s see, establishment neoliberal again. Hard to pinpoint if she was more left or less left because she ran a campaign catering to “on the fence conservatives” but was part of a very progressive administration.

        Maybe this what happens when you don’t vote for the lesser evil. That’s all I see.

        • scoredseqrica@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          “Joe Biden has the most progressive policies of the last decade” - incredible.

          I can think of zero politicians with a further left policy platform than Joe Biden. Think of all his progressive moves, like allowing the overturn of roe vs wade, Joe Biden who railed against school racial integration policies, Joe Biden author of the 94 crime bill, Joe Biden who continued building the wall, pro union Joe Biden who compelled the train unions to accept the companies deal. Joe Biden who lends his support both materially and in influence to right wing governments in Ukraine and Israel, supporting genocide in the latter. Etc etc. A real hero of the people this guy, fly out the red flag.

          • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            like allowing the overturn of roe vs wade

            Voters did this by not voting lesser evil

            Joe Biden who railed against school racial integration policies, Joe Biden author of the 94 crime bill,

            This was not part of his presidential administration and not my claim.

            pro union Joe Biden who compelled the train unions to accept the companies deal

            And went back and got sick days for the union after the deal was signed. Only president to march with the union.

            Biden who lends his support both materially and in influence to right wing governments in Ukraine and Israel, supporting genocide in the latter. Etc etc. A real hero of the people this guy, fly out the red flag.

            I never made the claim he wasn’t a neoliberal. I only cited the fact that he was the most progressive president we’ve seen in the country for as long as I’ve been alive.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      I think you need to look at the above the graph and try again, maybe with less f****** around and more using your brain.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    8 days ago

    No.

    Look at how the system actually works. There are two choices. Both candidates have to compete for all the people who vote. If you sit out the election that doesn’t mean either candidate will try to get your vote; they’ll ignore you and go after the people who do vote.

    Someone else came up with this analogy. It’s like the trolley problem except the there’s a third option. The third choice is to throw the switch to “Neither,” but “Neither” isn’t connected and the trolley kills someone anyway.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      My friend, what you wrote totally ignores the passage of time. Everything you wrote is true if we only look at one election, and none of it is true if we consider the passage of time and how pressure operates. If the political party is not getting votes, if all of their candidates are losing, either they will disband or they will find different policies to push.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Actually I paid attention to history. The pendulum swung the other way a few years back; arch Conservative Ronald Reagan courted the Left by picking the first woman on the Supreme Court and making Colin Powell his Number One guy.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        If you’re saying that the Left should vote for the Dems I agree.

        I’d love to have Bernie as President, but our side dropped the ball twice and failed to get him nominated.

    • Belgdore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      Or as Rush put it, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            7 days ago

            Let me explain something you may not be aware of.

            The man was an entertainer. His job was to make people laugh. I can cherry pick his work and come up with all kinds of absurd ideas he put into his act.

            If the only argument you can make is based on a comedy routine, then we have nothing more to discuss.

            • Grapho@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              Yeah bro, the anti war hippie who was challenging the FCC in the 70s would have totally been team corporatocracy. Carlin had several interviews where he talked about how the two party system in America is an illusion of choice and ragged on Bill Clinton for being phony, and that’s the farthest left liberal candidate in like 30 years, a fucking neoliberal.

              Yall sound exactly like the conservatives claiming MLK.

              • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                7 days ago

                Like I said, if you can’t come up with anything except a comedy act, we have nothing to discuss.

                Here’s a clip from his early days, proof that he couldn’t possibly have ever changed his thoughts about anything.

                https://youtu.be/-sx-7NucjEk

                • Grapho@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 days ago

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKO8qMJtbng this is from the 90s through the early 2000s, but I imagine you’ll find another reason to dismiss his words to pretend you know what was in his heart was different tho.

                  For the record, I don’t agree with his defeatist outlook, I think there’s comedians with better takes on American politics, but to pretend Carlin would be blue MAGA just because you wish him to be is ridiculous.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              7 days ago

              Let me explain something you may not be aware of. Entertainers often say serious things that cannot be said in other mediums. If you don’t understand that Carlin was doing political commentary, and appreciate his insights then you’re a very dim individual indeed.

    • WeUnite@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      7 days ago

      You understand how things work! Ignore the apathy trolls. They are trying to silence your vote. Here’s what actually happens if you vote for the lesser of two evils. You’re rights are protected and next time use the primary process to pick someone even better.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        You’re rights are protected and next time use the primary process to pick someone even better.

        Oh, Like how we voted for the lesser evil in 2020 and didn’t have a fucking primary in 2024. Don’t tell us to do something that your party makes sure doesn’t happen.

      • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        You’re rights are protected

        Like how Roe V. Wade was protected when Biden got into office? Like our right to protest the atrocities which our taxes are paying for in Gaza?

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Do yourself a favor and read the novels of Ross Thomas. He was a Washington reporter turned crime novelist. All his books have a strong political basis. Two of his best; “The Fools In Town Are On Our Side,” an ex-CIA hot shot is hired to clean up a small Southern city by making it so corrupt even the pimps will vote for reform; “The Porkchoppers,” a nuts and bolts look at a Union election with characters ranging from White House aides and Washington power mongers to factory line workers.