this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
266 points (78.3% liked)

Memes

45874 readers
1977 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

In other words, "B-but..."

Meanwhile, Trump takes office in 2 months. Keep polishing that halo tho!

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 19 points 7 hours ago

also known as

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 28 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Belgdore@lemm.ee 10 points 1 hour ago

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

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

If 5% of the general election popular vote for POTUS, knowing that the candidate cannot win, still voted for the Green Party platform then what effect would that have upon the Democratic Party platform?

On a five point difficulty scale this is a two. The test gets way harder than this.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee -1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a tea trolley.

Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn't vote for the alternative.

All the 'what if...?' games in the world isn't going to change that.

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip -1 points 57 minutes ago (2 children)

Thank you for the opportunity to teach.

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a tea trolley.

Minimization.

Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn't vote for the alternative.

Red herring.

All the 'what if...?' games in the world isn't going to change that.

Minimization.

This is a bit better than typical nonsense because there's two tactics in a sandwich. Next is usually ad hominem. But, this one may have another trick up their sleeve.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 43 minutes ago

Simply naming fallacies isn't teaching. The point of learning fallacies isn't so that you can just name them and feel like you've made a point.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 53 minutes ago

Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn’t vote for the alternative.

Red herring.

You're going to have to explain that in detail. Trump got more votes. He won. How is that anything except a cold, hard fact?

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 24 points 12 hours ago (4 children)

I feel as though there's a significant amount of extra info that isn't strictly conveyed here.

The core issue is that you only have 2 real options in america, third parties may as well not exist. So, come election time, your harm reduction option is to vote for the least evil party.

But that's not the way to solve the issue, and neither is abstaining or voting third party, IMO. The way to solve the issue happens between votes. Picketing, protesting, demonstrating, taking action, making noise. You won't solve the broken 2 party system at election time. But you do have to actually get out and take action, not just say that you will and keep letting the overton window shift right.

(Take with a pinch of salt because I'm not american)

[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

I mean, you're not the first one to say thing. People picket, people protest, people make noise. College students are arrested, protests either get Zero media attention (or worse, are regulated to an ineffective location because of regulations) or the protestors switch to disruptive tactics that actually get noticed and are demonized by everyone for it.

Like I keep hearing this "You have to go out and take action", EVERYONE IS! People are walking up and knocking on people's doors and getting punched in the face. People are outside houses getting cops called on them and arrested. Everyone is now more able to point out the bad actors and exactly how that's effecting the parties and policies.

You have Bernie Sanders and AOC out protesting and "making noise" in the spot light every damn day.

  • third party doesn't work
  • you can't solve the 2 party system
  • The way to solve the issue happens between votes

our election cycle is every 2 years or less depending on the occasion. IT IS ALWAYS ELECTION CYCLE IN AMERICAN POLITICS. They have to plan early and extensively to knock off any candidate they don't want (pulling national resources to squash anyone they view "outside" their establishment).

At this point the "make noise" comments need to reiterate what the end goal is for that make noise. You're setting people up to just be angry and upset and protest the inequality or inefficiencies of our system when that's exactly what the politicians want (it's a feature, not a bug). No amount of protesting, a litany of policies at that, will be effective when the complete political spectrum is against change. Take a look at the Civil Rights Era and the voting that was concluded, it looks completely unlike anything we have now.

The political parties have strengthened their stranglehold (I've argued in the past that they are "political parties" in name only, they are more incorporated or an oligarch representatives at this point and should be regulated as such). They listen to power only, the power was taken from the working and lower classes a long time ago. We get our shows we can put on, but it doesn't move the needle anymore. It used to at least force them to talk about moving the needle, even that's gone now.

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The core issue is that you only have 2 real options in america, third parties may as well not exist.

There's false assumptions necessary to reach this conclusion. Typically the false assumption is that the role of a third party is to win. The root cause of making this assumption is often that the scope of evaluation has been limited to one term or cycle.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I'm not convinced that voting for a third party has any positive effect, in one election cycle or over longer time. But I'm open to hearing your perspective.

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

The false assumption that most make is that one cycle doesn't effect the next.

However, if a third party garners just 5% of the general election vote for POTUS then their platform and higher quality candidate will be on every ballot in the next cycle.

If there's a third choice on every ballot then the the third party platform places tremendous and immediate pressure upon the platforms of the two major parties. The third party doesn't actually win unless the other refuse to compromise. Long term, the continued threat is of greater value than a subsequent victory.

But, the electoral scheme doesn't work unless leftists trust leftists to determine the collective risk of voting third party for the states they reside in. Even Jacobin failed to trust twice.

Things are pretty fucked. Electoral means are slow. I tend to advocate for boycott, strike, and riot (encompassing a wide scope of wisely breaking laws).

[–] UpperBroccoli@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

But that’s not the way to solve the issue

So...... revolution? It worked once before!

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 5 points 7 hours ago

I mean sure! Take the whole CEO situation and springboard off that, you find yourselves in circumstances similar to pre-revolution France so the conditions are right.

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 5 points 10 hours ago

This. I'm in the US and was fully prepared to protest whether Harris or Trump won, I'm opposed to them both in different ways. Trump and team may get me off my ass very quickly though.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 13 points 11 hours ago

Also the lesser evil kills all enthousiam and loses the election.

[–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 13 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Yep, that's why I always vote for the bigger evil.

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago

Accelerationism is more ethical than neoliberal denial. By voting for the bigger evil you've made yourself the lesser evil.

[–] gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 32 points 17 hours ago
[–] aliceblossom@lemmy.world 26 points 18 hours ago

There is a better way! Ranked choice voting means no more voting for the lesser of two evils. Look into fo yourselves and others - vote to change the voting systems near you!

[–] Dippy@beehaw.org -2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Things move to the right when the right wins. Things move to the left when the left wins. If the center wins, then things don't move much at all. The lesser evil prevents greater evil

[–] ExtraMedicated@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

Run for office and be the lesser evil.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 55 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Ah yes, so the best option is to not vote and let them succeed unimpeded.

I'm all for voting for a better candidate, but we have a broken 2 party system, and it very much is if you don't vote for one of the two main parties, you are pretty much just not voting at all.

I don't vote for this person. I'm voting against that person.

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 hours ago

Ah yes, so the best option is to not vote and let them succeed unimpeded.

Your very first lines are a false dichotomy.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

In my country we stopped voting the socdem party, because they betrayed the workers. From one election to the next they lost like half the votes.

For 4 years the conservative party ruled. But after that the socdem change their politics we voted them again and had had a fairly leftist government for the last year.

They are slacking again so I plan not to vote next election, hoping thar more people get the memo, they sink again in votes and sit to think on why people felt betrayed, and change for the better.

4 years of conservative party were worthy giving that after the socdems turned left again we conquer a lot of things that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise if we would have keep on voting their moderate centrist version.

We also voted for third parties when they said that it was throwing your vote away, and the other party got almost the same votes as the socdems(too bad they were not that good once they sat on office). My point is that courage is needed to make a change.

[–] svtdragon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

In the US the ruling party fills lifetime judicial appointments, which means the 4 years of conservative rule can have decades of lasting impact that will thwart any progressive policies that the next leftish government tries to implement.

[–] The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org 22 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Dems have been nothing but a doormat for the last 30 years, the party of complicity. I'm absolutely positive they've been playing the dupe and moving the US further to the right all the while playing the victim.

Could have fixed the electoral college but didn't. Could have codified abortion into the constitution but didn't. Could have filled RBGs supreme court seat without Senate confirmation regardless of the pearl clutching, but didn't. Could have put pressure on the justice department to get their investigation done with to get the trial for Trump for treason at least started....but fuck me, they didn't.... seriously- they couldn't put a case together in 3 years?????

Could have, should have, would have. Fucking useless.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 17 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I agree, but also stand by my point. In a horrible 2 party system, they're simply "not conservative", and so I'm forced to vote for them. That being said, Bernie should have won.

[–] The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org 15 points 23 hours ago

Bernie got railroaded.

[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 18 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Your caption totally doesn't match these graphs.

'The lesser evil' might as well be left (leaning) from the majorities POV. In that case the shift would be to the left. And furthermore you seem to be assuming that this shift continues because you keep voting for the 'lesser evil'?

I think that's contradictory. Voting for someone is telling them you like their course best. Why would they change their course if they are already getting the votes? (Or lead the polls?) They would only do so to capture another parties audience - and only if their own ideas are not popular (enough) already. So the contrary is true: Parties tend towards whoever is getting more votes. This is only logical, because that's ultimately what they need.

Having to vote for a 'lesser evil' just means your system is broken, corrupt, or you feel like you have no other option. In functioning democratic systems, you will see fluctuations based on the general sentiment towards current topics. What's currently going on tends to have a much more significant impact on voters than any ideals.

To give you a very simplistic example: Economy bad -> People vote for guy who (they think) will fix it. This was a big factor in Trumps victory. (And there are probably also more racist then you think.)

[–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (4 children)

OK, what else do you suggest? Not voting? That just speeds the process up. Voting for the small but much better option? In a FPTP voting system (like the American one that I assume you're talking about), the spoiler effect means that's as good as not voting.

This is my issue with the leftist community in general, and especially the ml group. Because of idealism, they seem to ask for something that doesn't exist and not accept anything else.

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

OK, what else do you suggest?

Not many ask.

Because of idealism, they seem to ask for something that doesn't exist and not accept anything else.

This is my issue with almost everyone. They believe they already know what others think, that no one could possibly have an alternative that they've not already considered.

My suggestions are as follows: Consider that your scope of evaluation is only one cycle. As a consequence there may be nuance in system function that you'd not considered. Then ask the same question but in good faith.

[–] TheFinn@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 36 minutes ago

Do you simply have no answer, or are you withholding them so you can feel smug?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] macattack@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

More like the Overton Window at work actually.

Biden will likely end up as one of the top 5 most progressive presidents ever. Society expects more from Democrats than they would've previously. There's nothing wrong w/ that, but the argument being presented seems misguided and like both sides nihilism.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 21 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Biden will likely end up as one of the top 5 most progressive presidents ever.

Biden will be remembered as the president with dementia who butchered Gaza.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

That's unfair, he'll also be remembered for supporting segregation

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

That's unfair, he'll also be remembered for supporting the electoral college

[–] vfreire85@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago

that's unfair, he'll also be remembered for keeping ICE camps from trump.

[–] DankOfAmerica@reddthat.com 8 points 19 hours ago

exactly. i thought Biden was the shit until Gaza. now, I dont even care about him at all. he's just another politician.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 7 points 23 hours ago

Us commies weren't always "far" left.

load more comments
view more: next ›