Everyone’s like “well rural states would lose their voice if we changed it to something sane!”
I live in a rural state and feel like I have no voice, lmao
4 Likes
I mean I live in NJ. My voice wasn’t being heard either way. I know the feeling
1 Like
The duopoly parties have both taken a rightward shift amd are completely unappealing to the younger generation. This is the opportunity for third parties to work towards power.
Rural voices have way more power here in swing provinces, take Alberta for example. It’s theoretically blue (conservative right) but big cities are orange (democratic socialist left) I saw the same thing on US electoral maps,cities tend to be more left leaning. Speaking of big cities, the only province that matters is Ontario. 75% of Canadians live in Ontario in the GTA. That’s why if you see Canadian elections they are called after Ontario polls close, no one cares about western Canada. If you more here don’t move to the western provinces.
3 Likes
Wanna know something funny?
When Labor won the Australian Federal election in 2022, all of the right wing nut jobs cried that we should get rid of ranked choice (ironic since it was the then ‘not the labor party’ party that introduced it back in 1911) and bring back first past the post. But when Labour won the UK election this year, those same cookers cried that first past the post needs to go. Then I look at Alaska that brought in ranked choice in 2020, then of course the GOP wants it removed because you know who lost a few elections.
It is funny seeing RWNJ’s fail to understand what ranked choice voting actually means. You basically vote for the compromise candidate in the end. Sure you may prefer John Citizen to win, but he is a minor party candidate so your next preferred choice is Jane Civilian, who is a member of one of the major parties that aligns with your interests.
It is why here in Australia the Coalition tends to get higher first preference votes because
- They do not compete with each other. Liberal sets themselves up in urban areas while the Nationals are regional and rural.
- They are a formal coalition so you can add those together.
Meanwhile in contrast Labor and the Greens are not a formal coalition and as such split up the ‘left wing’ voters a lot more than the cooker parties (one nation, Palmers UAP etc). But greens voters usually preference Labor above the coalition and the RWNJ minor parties, so Labor usually gets a lot of second preferences.
Usually for first preference votes nation wide, it goes
- Liberal
- Labor
- Greens
- National
- others
But looking at the nationwide vote is pointless unless it is proportional voting. Because our lower houses (federal & state) are done via electorates. So it does not matter if your party gets the most first preferences since you can still lose the election due to second or third preferences. Unless you get > 50% on first preferences alone of course.
Speaking of proportional voting, we use that for our upper houses (federal and state) which has ranked choice built into it. Regardless if you vote above (party only) or below the line (individual candidates). Something cookers seem to not know as well. Since some of them want proportional voting after FPTP failed them in the UK. kek.
Sometimes parties simply refuse to run a candidate at all in certain safe seat electorates. (same seat usually means you win on first preferences alone or you get very close to >50% that you win very quickly in the second preference round). For example my electorate (and some of the neighboring ones) are very Labor safe so there have been times where the coalition simply do not run a candidate. Because what is the point?
Although this does leave room for independents to snatch a win. The biggest upset win in the 2022 election was the seat of Kooyong. The Liberal Party heartland as it was the seat of Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the current ‘not the labor party’ party and our longest running PM. Josh Frydenburg lost the seat to an independent and the icing on the cake was that Josh was being groomed by the media to be the next leader of the Liberal Party because the Liar from the Shire, or Scotty from Marketing was that unpopular. Leaving them with Peter ‘Potato Voldemort’ Dutton.
To sum up, cookers are morons who blame every electoral system eventually because none of them allow to them to win 100% of the time.
5 Likes
I mean, realistically, with the current state of US politics, it doesn’t matter if you rip apart the voting system, you’ll still have the same problem. Which is money in politics dictating policy, which is why this line from Eric Li speaks volumes:
“You can change the party, but you can’t change the policies.”
There’s a bit more to that quote, but I’m ignoring it for now. But seriously, when it comes to the things that matter, little to nothing changes regardless of who’s in power. I’m talking about universal healthcare, living wages or even boosting the minimum wage, election security, border access, immigration and foreign policy for example.
And that’s honestly pretty sad if I’m being honest. But until that’s fixed, by removing money from politics, you’ll never fix the fundamental issues with America as a whole.
3 Likes
Yes.
But it allows for you to at least put a voice to your ideal candidate vs what you will accept.
If the US kept FPTP but got rid of the electoral college, I’d be happy enough.
5 Likes
My parents are boycotting the election. At least they said so. I’d prefer they vote for Jill.
They must be rather privileged if they feel comfortable enough to skip an election.
Like even writing in a name would be better than just skipping the election imo. Not everyone gets to vote for their leaders like we can.
4 Likes
This election is reminding me so much of the last two seasons of the West Wing that I’m wondering when Josh and Toby are going to make an appearance.
But don’t you see this is how we will save the world. Remind everyone who wanted the $1 beer that climate change will affect crops, including barley and hops, which means that as climate change worsens there won’t be any beer. Imagine for a moment how motived people would become if they realized that.
If you really want to change things in US politics, there are three things you would need to do. Bear in mind they are all difficult.
-
Overturn Citizens United: this Supreme Court decision is what allows large amounts of money into political campaigns. Overturn this or pass a law that refutes it and legally money will no longer equal speech.
-
Ban Lobbyists from Congress: one of the reasons that Congress doesn’t seem to have done anything (besides incompetence and sports mentalities about political parties) is that companies often solicit members of congress directly on behalf of their companies. Essentially, it is legalized bribery. Ban lobbyists from congress and they will be forced to argue based on the merits of a law rather the interests of individual companies.
-
Review and address Jerrymandering: Jerrymandering is the practice of redrawing congressional districts in favor one political party to adversely affect another or to deprive a population of proper representation. Ever wonder why a state votes one way even though the majority of the population disagrees, the districts were drawn to favor one party. Properly address this issue if you want people who have denied a voice to have their voice back.
As for how difficult it will be to do all of this. Have you ever tried to swim against an ocean current with a starving shark at your feet?
5 Likes
Ironically that’s what the carbon tax is for, to punish people who don’t take climate change seriously. The people who don’t take climate change seriously voted for $1 beer. We still pay a carbon tax I think but either way it’s doing it’s job. It’s just a strange linchpin argument for climate change deniers.
2 Likes
It’s the opposite of that. The Muslim and Arab communities are through with the democratic party. Things like the uncommitted campaign were all over the news. And they don’t see anything in the Republicans either.
I guess some don’t care about third parties.
I don’t see it that way. It’s all a farce in most places, including the U.S. Some just don’t even pretend.
1 Like
It’s a very priviliged position to not vote especially when other’s human rights are at stake.
Watching PoC men especially not stand on principle to help other marginalized groups really makes me feel like PoC men will be what gives Trump a win this time, and that will be interesting to unpack after the election is over.
2 Likes
Maybe but the Biden administration pretty much burned bridges with the Arab and or Muslim voting blocs by giving Netanyahu the greenlight to go berserk.
Which is a sentiment I can’t really argue with. But the alternative isn’t much better either. To the point of Trump calling Biden a ‘weak Palestinian’ at the debate which I’m pretty sure is geriatric for traitor. Because for some reason boomers consider Israel the 51st State.
So that demographic is caught in between a rock and a hard place. But as for me personally I’ll continue voting sensibly. Harris is by my estimation a calculating careerist with no staunch beliefs or principles. And is furthermore a cop and that hall moniter crowd and I just never see eye to eye.
But yeah I’ll vote for her. But I’d also vote for six racoons stacked together in a raincoat at this point so my endorsement doesn’t exactly say much.
5 Likes
I care about ending the two party system (and more I wouldn’t want to say on this forum) so I see a boycott or vote as a step toward that. Any Republican material gains are short term compared to that.
Not to mention I find concerns about “needing to stop fascism from the American Right at all costs” laughable from the people who wished Trump well after being shot.
1 Like
I will never rag on someone for what they truly believe in. If you choose not to vote or vote for a third-party candidate that is your choice. And I wish you well in that choice.
What I will say instead is this. Understand what the consequences of your actions will be. Throwing out all of the rhetoric the parties and the media use this will be an important election. The implications for the US and the rest of the world will be felt for a very long time.
My opinion about Kamala Harris is mixed to put it lightly. Not helped by the fact that during Biden’s administration she was affectively a political non-entity. That said, she at the very least seems to have a moral core. Which is far more than I can say for the Republican candidate and even more so for those he chooses to surround himself with. So, the choice for those who choose to vote for a main party candidate in this election is between a person who is not perfect but at the very least wants to do the right thing against someone who has repeated proven to be an untrustworthy narcissist who I wouldn’t trust with a potato gun let alone the US military.
3 Likes
That and I understand the reason not to vote for her is the genocide in Gaza. But a leftist president would be easier to sway by public opinion to take action. A Republican president will have zero empathy.
The left can be swayed to support Palestine on a global level it’s already happening in Ireland, England and France. But we need America too. America is the country that has reach to pressure the UN, the united western left has power to pressure our elected representatives.
Non violence is a slow process, i understand frustrations, but it’s more effective in the long run for lasting change than violence.
It is your choice to vote for whoever you want, I respect that, but left solidarity is power. Power leads to change.
2 Likes
Yes. The Republicans and the Right Wing have dutifully packed the court over the years.
Citizens United allowed for unlimited dark money to pour into campaigns.
Dobbs over turned Roe.
This court also granted Trump immunity for “official acts”
If only Ruth Bader Ginsburg retired while Obama was President and the Dems had the Senate - hanging on until she croaked ended up giving Trump a court pick.
Personally, I think we need to change Lifetime Appointments for the Federal Courts - but that would take an amendment to the constitution. I think 10 or 16 year terms for Federal Judges would make more sense than a lifetime.
4 Likes
As an outsider looking in, it does feel stupid that there are limits on the executive branch, even before the 22nd amendment due to elections every 4 years but the highest court in the land are lifetime appointments that do not need a supermajority in the senate (which I think is 67 votes in favour, thereby having ‘bipartisan support’) to be elected to said court.
Although here in Australia to become a justice on our federal high court you need to be approved by the Governor General and before that you need to be approved by the Prime Minister and their cabinet. However once you reach 70 years old, you are forced to retire.
3 Likes