• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    52 months ago

    Here is a good video that explains how mathematically, over time, if you give people only one vote, their options will become whittled down to two major parties who don’t represent anyone. It’s just what happens if you only have one vote per person. In these scenarios, third parties are destined to fail. That’s not hyperbole or exaggeration, it’s literally just how the math works. Ranked choice, or allowing multiple votes per person is one of the only ways to actually have representative representatives.

    Should we strategically harm reduce by choosing regular Hitler over hypothetical 1000% ssj3 Hitler?

    ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY.

    With ‘regular Hitler’, you still have a vote, and you still have a CHANCE to change to government. If you vote for ‘1000$ ssj3 Hitler’, you’re not only guaranteeing that you won’t have another vote, no say in changing the government, but you’re ALSO signing the death warrants for queer people, immigrants, and people of other religions. Trump wants to KILL POLITICAL RIVALS. He’s trying to ban objective reporting. He’s praising Hannibal Lecter! Yes, it’s a fucking awful situation to be in, but we also don’t have an alternative.

    At what point does even our electoral action aim for what we want as opposed to what they want?

    Like I said before, voting is the FIRST STEP. We do need a major overhaul of the election process, but that starts with states like Maine going for Ranked Choice voting. You have to start local and build your way up, this isn’t a problem that will be solved overnight with a single vote. It will START with a single vote, and once we actually get people who represent us in government, we’ll see actual progress.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      42 months ago

      so, none of that stuff happened during the first trump presidency but itll happen this time so there’s no point in voting outside the two party fascist duopoly until some hypothetical new electoral system is put in place (how? by voting it in? which of the two parties will welcome this significant change that completely restructures their hold on power?).

      that’s a wild outlook.

      at what point does even our electoral action on the most individual, atomized level need to aim for what we actually want instead of some deeply flawed and amoral compromise with one of the parties of fascists?

      surely there must be a red line that both parties could cross that would make you abandon the dire calculus of strategic harm reduction and instead use your meager but meaningful vote to bring about the future you want, right?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 months ago

        Nope! As I’ve said before, voting is not an ethical choice in a single-vote system. That’s because it’s not the solution. Its the first step.

        The real work starts afterwards with local government and getting involved in your community. I already told you how Maine is changing the way voting works there, and everyone can focus on changing their own states laws to continue the work.

        Neither of the parties is going to want it, which is why it won’t just be on a nationwide ballot. We have to do it ourselves.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          32 months ago

          so there’s nothing the two parties could both be doing that would make you say “damn, i should not support either of these groups in any way”?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            22 months ago

            No.

            Not voting appears the exact same way as saying “Hey, both parties are equally good, and I’m fine with either!”

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              32 months ago

              At no point have I ever suggested anyone not vote.

              So you’re saying there’s nothing the two parties could do to lose your support and cause you to vote third party?