EDIT: To the people downvoting this post because democrats > republicans: you’re missing the point.
This is dumb as shit. Democrats aren’t perfect but they do care. That is why they actively took steps to stop people from dying during COVID unlike the GOP. That’s why they support universal healthcare, unlike the GOP. That’s why they support public education unlike the GOP. That is why they support free and fair elections unlike the GOP.
Before I say anything else, if you’re voting, right now at a national level at least, Democrats are essentially the only option if you give a shit about democracy and aren’t an accelerationist.
That said: The GOP fucking up covid so hard is probably the only reason Trump didn’t get re-elected. Democrats as a collective do not support universal healthcare. They had the capability to pass whatever they wanted in Obama’s first term. They actively rejected even a public option. They fucked us (normal, non-rich people) hard, because, as a group, they ain’t us. They could have fixed a lot of the issues around public education that were introduced in the bush administration, but they didn’t. How’s that student loan debt forgiveness going? They, again as a group not individually, hate the idea of all those loans not getting paid. THINK OF THE BANKS! As far as free and fair elections go, they benefit from the FPTP system, they will never get rid of it unless they’re forced to.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS SAID: VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL IS WHAT WE’RE STUCK WITH UNLESS WE WANT THINGS TO GET WAY, WAY WORSE.
The alternative to these fetid dickbags is fascists and yes, some literal Fucking Nazis.
In a world where the Overton window isn’t totally fucked, Democrats are center-right. They, again as a group, give zero shits about regular people.
Only few dems actually support universal Healthcare, unfortunately, and the majority don’t care about anything but lining their pockets. It’s the same with the GOP, of course.
That being said, of course vote for dems if your only other option is reps. What’s bad is better than what’s terrible. However, don’t simply vote and be done with it.
Educate yourself. Improve your life. Exercise, organize, teach. Grassroots praxis is where you can meaningfully improve the lives of your community, and carry that momentum elsewhere. The two party system isn’t going to be corrected purely via electoralism, it’s a stop-gap to prevent sliding into fascism.
Yep. You can vote for the bad party or you can vote for the party that wants you dead. At least if you keep voting for the bad party the other side will get less bad to get more votes. Then you vote for the less bad party and so on until they actually start being good.
It’s so easy, but general population for some reason don’t think that way.
An easy solution will always sound more appealing than a complex one, even if the easy solution is a lie. MAGA Republicans offer only this.
Worried about immigration? “Build the wall!”
Think government is corrupt? “Drain the swamp”
Does LGBT stuff confuse you “Groomers!”
Scared of change? “Make America Great Again”
No real understanding of any of the underlying problems and no plans to address them. Just catchy slogans.
Just
catchystupid slogans that appeal to the worst americans
I wanna know how this photo happened
Photoshop
Oof I forgot that was a thing, thanks lol
“first past the post” voting always devolves to a two party system. The founding fathers knew this and warned against it. Until we get ranked choice, or something similar, we’re stuck.
CGP Grey video for those who want to know more
That’s a great video.
Not quite.
FPTP always devolves into local two candidate elections.
There’s no guarantee, though, that those two parties are the same everywhere. Regional third parties can do quite well under FPTP. That particularly works for e.g. the Scottish National Party or the Bloc Quebecois.
Yeah. That’s how Bernie keeps winning as an independent.
To be fair, the American Founding Fathers may not have had heard of the ranked choice voting. The idea was only just forming after the US became independent.
deleted by creator
I see the campaign to suppress Democrat voter turnout has started.
It is all over everything right now. It’s giving me PTSD from 2016. Are we voting Jill Stein again?
If you’ll match my donation I’ll explain how Bernie can still win
I’ve voted democrat for every election I can remember. And while I like to see my “team” win as much as the next guy, at some point you realize that other countries have better electoral systems in place.
Meanwhile, we’ve all acquiesced to this 2-party winner takes all bullshit.
Look I hate a two party system as much as the next person but the both sides are the same thing is just not true, don’t say it.
The most confusing thing to me is how Democrats can have majorities in the House and POTUS and their agenda gets inched along but the second Republicans have that their agenda gets rammed through asap.
Is that a misconception? It certainly seems that Republicans make much more aggressive and active use of their power.
House
this is incorrect, the GOP controls the House atm. The Dems control the Senate.
Really, take time to understand how legislation is crafted in a bicameral congress, it’s worth it.
I didn’t say they controlled the house, I described what they do when they control the house.
Do pay attention to the complexities of the English language, it’s really worth it :-P
how Democrats can have majorities in the House
man I’m just reading what you wrote.
They clearly meant in the past
Gottem lol
removed by mod
If you’re referring to relatively recent events (like the first 2 years of Biden’s term) you need to look no further than Kyrsten Sienema and Joe Manchin. “Democrats” that opposed the agenda (and general Good Things™) for personal greed and lobbying interests. Biden had a majority in the house, and a hostile supreme court, which we’re going to be dealing with for a good long time that’s to McConnell’s fuckery. The defection of Sienema and Manchin made progress very difficult.
It’s also harder to get the wider variety of interests in the big tent of left to go in the same direction. Kinda like herding cats.
The way to end the 2-party stranglehold is to implement RCV or similar, and the only party trying to do that is the Democrats.
They are? More info please.
Sadly, no. It benefits them to keep it the way it is.
DC democrats do not represent Democrats nationally, but if you find that compelling, far more local Democratic groups support it:
- Alameda County (CA) Democratic Party
- California Democratic Party
- Colorado Democratic Party
- Maine Democratic Party
- Massachusetts Democratic Party
- Minneapolis, MN DFL Party
- Progressive Democrats of America
- Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles
- San Francisco (CA) Democratic Party
Compare which cities and states have implemented RCV in the US, (mostly blue,) and which states have outright banned its use (mostly red.)
Democrats did a big push for RCV in 2019, and while the Biden administration hasn’t weighed in yet, the Obama administration he served in supported it.
The committee coordinates strategy to support Democratic Party candidates throughout the country for local, state, and national office Source.
Not to say that a grassroots movement can’t enact RCV. But as we saw with Bernie, the establishment will not give up power easily.
Thanks!
Oh. I thought we’d reached the ninth circle and hell had frozen. :-<
They do and I’d love to have a better method available to us.
However the meme is a little off.
One party doesn’t give a fuck about you, the other actively wishes you harm and works to that end.
They’re not “my team” but they’re well past “the lesser of two evils” given the other one.
Same. Democrats are shit but I mean…fuck republicans more.
What country would you point to as a good example?
Sweden, Germany, Colombia, Australia, etc. Ranked/Alternative/Proportional voting. We should have multiple choices without fear of voting for less popular options being useless. With our current system we basically can’t vote for third parties.
I’m skeptical of ranked choice voting being a panacea after watching Eric Adams get elected in New York
Wtf NYC, electing a cop to be mayor ? Surely there were better options.
Let’s not pretend that ranked choiced voting in Oz didn’t elect Tony Abbott, the prototype for Trump’s one liners and spewing hate.
Every answer to whatever question: “Stap the boats”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for it. But it’s not some silver bullet that will make all the party candidates turn into Jesus.
It takes a while for the effects of party decentralization to take hold. The underlying party structure is at the core of two-party systems. RCV is just one incentive (a big one) to restructure parties to be more democratic and diverse, instead of coalescing into monolithic amorphous blobs. Along with Gerrymandering laws, campaign financial regulation and voter civic education. It all has to work in concert to dismantle the social control version of democracy.
Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Malta, Northern Ireland and Scotland all have ranked choice vote. Slovenia had it previously but regressed to FPTP in 2021.
If the duopoly of our government is enough to convince folks not to vote, they weren’t going to vote anyway and were just looking for a reason.
I don’t disagree with OP, but at the same time, we’ve only got one tool to enact change. So let’s use that tool to get things like ranked voting.
But you’re also right, plenty of folks out there telling folks to give up. All the more reason to not in my opinion.
Give up? More like the Republicans are grasping for straws considering how bad they have done in local and midterm elections. They could be putting propaganda to dissuade Democratic voters, which I don’t see happening anytime soon. Biden (and many Democrats) has surprisingly been more progressive for me as a leftist and many people appreciate that. My theory is that the pandemic and the government response to alleviate the costs after the lockdowns made Americans appreciate more government assistance.
That’sa lie. I’ve voted every election since eligible age but fuck the two majors. I’m happy to write in, but I’m not keen on Cornell anymore either so I’m about to nope, unless someone better than the status quo comes along.
The people we need most to turn out and vote this election season (18-24) are the most susceptible to this kind of campaign. And you very much can get them to vote with the right message.
The Constitution was literally the best a bunch of doped-up, syphilitic slaveholders could come up with to replace the divine right of kings. They even had a first try with the Articles of Confederation and fucked that up.
We really need to stop teaching kids that a system of government written by people who used leeches to cure hysteria is the greatest thing ever created.
deleted by creator
In multy-party system, you often end up voting for a party that then on your behalf makes deals with other parties to form coalition, deals you did not agree upon. It is like delegation of duty, or rather usurpation of your vote. And you still end up with fucked up government that does not reflect your values. In two party system you are the one who are forced to make those compromises.
In multiparty system, often one coalition (or even party) dominates for many years and election cycles. The two party system nearly guarantees strong opposition.
I still think that two party system is better.
Power balances inside those coalitions (which can vary wildly depending on the votes outcome, compared to two party system) affect a lot. If the stricter left-wing party wins over the center-left party and gets to be the PM party then obviously the coalition is going to be more left-wing. And so on.
And it offers much better options for people to shop for a party they actually agree with. Having to vote either this or that is a sucky system because it offers basically two avenues for you if you are not happy with the party you voted for. Either you switch to the other side totally (which is often not at all what you want) or you don’t vote and you’ll just end up helping the other party anyway. Great options.
Multiparty system offers much better option to vote for, but then there is only one coalition. So, the question is only if you are the one deciding what compromise to make, or party you vote for decides for you. There is argument to be made that it is better for democracy that you decide for that.
Each party in 2 party system tries to maximize number of votes and adjusts its position for that as well, which is similar to “power balances shift inside those coalitions” that you mention, but here, they are talking directly to voters, as opposed to each other. Again, I see advantage of two party system here.
I believe that bad perception of two party system is because now, we truly have two camps in our culture - the society is broken in two, cohesiveness is lost. But it is not because of the two party system, it is the opposite: because of this cultural break it propagated, “mirrored” into our politics. But it is exactly how it supposed to work in representative democracy. It would be strange if we had this cultural problem and our politicians would not.
Two party system is just a bad idea if you want to have options. It’s basically left or right and if you’re not pleased by their politics, what can you do, not vote or vote the other side even further from you?
then there is only one coalition
I don’t get what you mean. There’s a huge variety of possible coalitions. All depends on who can make the 50%, if they’re going for a majority government.
So, the question is only if you are the one deciding what compromise to make, or party you vote for decides for you. There is argument to be made that it is better for democracy that you decide for that.
You are absolutely not the one making those decisions with two party system with two big tent parties. They’re making those decisions and compromises inside the party, since they have to please most of the voter base anyway and try to fish for new voters from the other side.
Each party in 2 party system tries to maximize number of votes and adjusts its position for that as well, which is similar to “power balances shift inside those coalitions”
The established party leadership in the US seem to just do similar sort of politics again and again, and reacting fairly little to that sort of stuff. It’s nowhere near the difference from voters switching to a different party altogether.
I don’t get what you mean. There’s a huge variety of possible coalitions.
There many possible coalitions, but there is actually just one with which you end up with, and into which you do not contribute.
You are absolutely not the one making those decisions with two party system with two big tent parties. They’re making those decisions and compromises inside the party…
I am not talking about compromises inside the party. I am talking about compromises that you are forced to make when you select one or another party.
The established party leadership in the US seem to just do similar sort of politics again and again
Are you arguing that US parties are too similar?
There many possible coalitions, but there is actually just one with which you end up with, and into which you do not contribute.
Of course you (and other voters) contribute. The biggest party typically is one that forms the coalition and the vote share and recent performance at the poll among other things affects that.
I am not talking about compromises inside the party. I am talking about compromises that you are forced to make when you select one or another party.
They are the same sort of compromises. There’s a reason every round people are unsatisfied with the result, even if their party won.
Are you arguing that US parties are too similar?
No?? I’m saying the parties do similar sort of politics as they’ve been doing for decades. Voters swinging to the left has little effect when it’s the same Democrat party in rule. Or same for right wing. You need something dramatic for the position to actually move.
They are the same sort of compromises. There’s a reason every round people are unsatisfied with the result, even if their party won.
Yes, exactly! But the difference is WHO is making the compromise. You, as a voter, or not. Maybe I like pro-business party but would never, ever vote for party that want to push religion into high school. In US, I will just not vote republican, because I can not make this compromise. But, in other countries, I may vote for pro-business party which then enters into coalition with religious party, and I can not take my vote back. And even in the next election I would not know if pro-business party will end up in coalition with religious party.
Or same for right wing.
I would say that particularly GOP is very different than it were 10 years ago, because of the Trump voters.
If the pro-business party is making compromises or decisions you don’t like, you can switch your party. If Democrats make those compromises or decisions, where will you go?
I would say that particularly GOP is very different than it were 10 years ago, because of the Trump voters.
That’s what I had in mind too. But Democratic party is still very much the same. It takes a lot to change those parties, otherwise it’s same old same old.
Here are some cold hard Ameri-facts for you:
- Having 2 dominant political parties is a reflection of how our political systems have been designed at almost every level (federal, state, local). American politics is very much based on first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all elections. These kinds of election systems are terrible for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the very real problem of vote splitting and the spoiler effect–leading to “third parties” which are almost all unserious, nonviable, and potentially backed by people with ulterior motives. The vast majority of the time, voting for a third party candidate in America is simply throwing your vote away and is effectively the same as not voting. (Even as a “protest”, it’s not a very good one, because it’s never clear what can be interpreted from why people vote the way they do.)
The solution to this problem is changing how we run elections so that the most popular candidates are more likely to win, and so that people’s individual votes are less likely to become nullified in various ways (like by voting for a statistically nonviable candidate, for one). I like Ranked Choice Voting and STAR voting, but just about anything is better than the way that most American elections currently work.
- Even in a hypothetical future where we have 10 viable parties (and more democratic voting systems), no political party is going to “give a fuck about you” as an individual. Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Vegetarians, Librarians, and whatever other parties spring up. The truth is, they all only give a fuck about getting your vote, so that they can get in a position of political power to do the things that they and their influential backers want (all the while reaping the benefits of doing so). There is no political party on Earth that is in it for the benefit of all of mankind–they all have some kind of agenda and ideology that they want to put in place.
In that way American politics is like a tug of war, we current have 2 viable parties, one pulling the rope to the left and another pulling the rope to the right. You can spend as much time as you want lamenting where the rope currently is compared to where you would like it to be. But if you want the rope to move left, it makes sense to join the left side. And if you want the rope to move right, it makes sense to join the right side. Sitting out just makes it easier for the “other side” to make “progress”. Having more parties doesn’t really change that, it just turns a 1-dimensional battle into an n-dimensional battle.
The biggest benefit that comes from having multiple (viable) political parties is increased competition of ideas. But again, America truly require huge systemic changes to how we run elections to make that a reality.
I’m going to be voting for the party that more closely aligns with the direction that I want the country to move in. It’s the only smart move in the game of American politics.
Librarians lmao
Let’s have a no party system like George Washington advised.
It’ll just end up the same way with unofficial groupings.
removed by mod
deleted by creator
People: But they aren’t perfect!
Me (trans): But…I want to live tho
People: But gaza!!!
Me: It is literally illegal for trans minors to get any gender dysphoria treatment in my state and they’re drafting bills for adult bans, please help me (and also Republicans would’ve gone even harder supporting Israel)
People: BoTh SiDeS!!!
That’s still pretty sad, the only upside here is that one party doesn’t actively hate you. Neither gives a fuck though. It’s still a shitty choice and the point of the meme.
This speaks to me. Thanks.
I’d vote for the Turd sandwich, myself.
BoTh siDeS tHo….
