• Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    46
    ·
    5 months ago

    same reason people blindly follow Trump

    four years we still have low wages and higher costs, women lost rights held for over half a century, police are still running amuck, environmental concerns abound, genocide, antiimmigration policies

    and Trump’s resume does not look any better

    and the same people will scream and pitch a fit if anyone suggest a third party because it means a vote for that other guy

    football politics

    • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It makes perfect sense why we only have two parties while many countries in Europe have lots of parties. It’s not magic and it’s not because our parties are just so good at stopping third parties.

      The reason we are like this is because our voting system punishes similar candidates who run against each other. This results in parties that are more like coalitions, each made up of various factions that would be separate parties in a better system, who run a primary to pick one candidate to send forth, so that they don’t cannibalize each other in the general election.

      The bad part is that even the primaries generally have the same flawed first-past-the-post voting scheme, so similar candidates often have to strategically drop out or not run at all.

      This voting system desperately needs to be fixed. But you can’t fix it by simply acting like we just have to decide to have more parties, nor can you fix it by voting third party and screwing over one of the parties. I think this idea of voting third party in this election is appealing to some because it makes you feel like you’re doing something to fix it. You’re not.

      In my view the best hope of fixing this is pushing for election reform locally and winning over communities to the idea. There are some parts of the country with better voting systems in place. We should build on that.

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      If you’re not voting for one of the big two in most cases you might as well save yourself the bother and stay home. Not saying it’s right, it shouldn’t be that way but the US voting system is extremely flawed so you need to make a frustrating decision. That’s just the shitty reality of it from what I can tell from the outside at least.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          This is such BS. Trump is a piece of shit but there’s no way he can just declare himself a dictator and remove our right to vote. Remember “the president doesn’t really have that much power” or at least that’s what I hear anytime Biden gets criticized for doing so little to help the lower and middle class in this country. Voting for Biden isn’t going to make the GOP go away or rethink their strategies. We’ll continue our downward slide regardless of which one of these old windbags gets elected.

          • Ioughttamow@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Remember 1/6? Just give them a second go, they already tried to subvert democracy, they’ve already damaged many of our institutions by more than they’ve been able to recover in the last 4, building is more fruitful than destruction, but it takes longer and is harder. Give these fucks 4 more years and they’ll get it right, handmaids tale here we go

            • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yes, I remember it along with every other American alive. There is zero chance they’ll allow that to be repeated again just like a 9/11 will never happen again because people no longer think a hijacking means being flown to some other country for ransom.

              Our institutions are being damaged by the leadership from both these parties. I’m so sick of hearing excuses for why things can’t improve meanwhile Republicans seem to face little opposition in passing their shitty agenda while also not holding a majority.

              • Ioughttamow@kbin.run
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                The zero chance is only if you don’t give that power back. The judiciary is already captured for at least another decade. If they get the executive and legislature back, and 4 more years, the zero chance is gone. You need to stop being cute, there will be consequences

      • RampageDon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Right the issue isn’t voting for another person, the issue is that in first past the post voting, voting for a third party is essentially not voting. So you can protest vote because you dislike the main person your party puts forward, but if you think the other parties candidate is worse you are doing yourself a disservice voting third party. It’s not the people it is the system.

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      If you think these two candidates are the same, you haven’t put literally any effort into paying attention at all, get out of here with your enlightened centrist bullshit.

      Yeah, Biden is mediocre at best, and you’re usually right about the Dem vs GOP race… but this isn’t that, anymore. MAGA is a different beast.

      • Melkath@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Blue MAGA at its finest.

        “Ya, Biden got us into a genocide, BuT tRuMp WoUlD bE sO mUcH wOrSe!!@@!@”

        “Ya, Biden was the one who dropped 35 billion dollars for the militarization of police, BuT tRuMp WoUlD bE sO mUcH wOrSe!!@@!@”

        “Ya, Biden was the one who silenced and admonished peaceful protesters while commanding order, BuT tRuMp WoUlD bE sO mUcH wOrSe!!@@!@”

        The current conversation is “Trump would be so much worse”, but its like all of you forgot that he is going for a second term, and in his first term, while he was bad, he was not as bad as Biden. And you have no idea how much it fucking destroys me to say that about the leader of the party I used to so vehemently supported. But its just the case. All the bad things Trump did, Biden has continued, and Biden has come out with a host of things that are MUCH worse than anything that Trump ever did.

        We must reject the 2 party system.

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          and in his first term, while he was bad, he was not as bad as Biden.

          Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump was 1,000,000x worse than Biden. Nice try Ivan.

        • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          5 months ago

          in his first term, while he was bad, he was not as bad as Biden

          If you ignore the 4 years of constant chaos, mismanaged pandemic that ended up killing millions of Americans, damage done to our reputation on the world stage, the record setting amount of graft, and ten thousand other things… This is absolute lunacy.

        • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          “Ya, but don’t ask me who could win against Trump if not Biden, bEcAuSe aLL i kNoW iS biDeN bAd!!@@!@“

          “Ya, you can keep telling me how trump will be worse, and prove it, but aLL i kNoW iS bIDeN bad!@!@@!!”

          Ya, I couldn’t have even pointed to Palestine on a map a year ago, bUt aLL’s i kNoW iS, BiDeN BAAAAAD!!@!!@“

          You honestly think Trump wasn’t as bad as Biden? Really? I think we can all see why you’re here now.

          • btaf45@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            You honestly think Trump wasn’t as bad as Biden? Really?

            It’s very hard to understand America from St. Petersburg.

            • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I’m confused with the comparison… No one is talking about St. Petersburg here.

              • Ledivin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                The implication is that the person you replied to is an actor paid for by Russia, trying to destabilize the country.

            • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Did you seriously just suggest that democrats, or as you ignorantly like to call them: “blue MAGA” should die?

              And…

              Polls…. ROFL! This is one of the reasons why I can’t take you seriously. The other is that you didn’t give a shit about Palestine before October of last year.

              And news flash kiddo. EVERYONE opposed genocide. We still have an election to consider. So for all your pretending to know what you’re talking about- which MANY have disproven by the way-

              You’re going to get genocide no matter the results.

              But again, you already know that. You just seem to want better genocide.

              • Melkath@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Fascists. I said fascists should die.

                If this is your response, you are agreeing that modern democrats are fascists.

                • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  No, you said specifically… that blue MAGA should die. And everyone knows it’s the ignorant little pet name you people have for liberals.

  • Leviathan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think Trump retiring and the Republicans replacing him with a charismatic, young, intelligent christofascist would be devastating for the Democrats (and humanity) right now and I don’t know why they don’t do it.

    For that matter I don’t see why Democrats don’t replace Biden with a charismatic, young, intelligent social democrat which would be equally devastating for republicans. So who knows with these people.

  • CaptainKickass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    The only reason I’m voting for him is that he’s not trump.

    I’m not voting for Biden, I’m voting against trump

  • TootSweet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    I get the feeling Trumpers would have trouble comprehending this. Trumpers are in a straight up cult and I’m guessing it kindof doesn’t compute that the majority of Biden voters kinda hate him and vote for Biden in spite of that.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      One of the most common refrain from Trump supporters as to why it was impossible that he lost in 2024 was effectively “we treat Trump like our cult leader and follow him everywhere. . . but democrats don’t do this with Biden! No way he could beat Trump.”

  • venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    179
    ·
    5 months ago

    Ranked Choice Voting! Find your local RCV group and find ways to help get RCV implemented in your city! It’s something that sees opposition from republicans and democrats so you know it’s good.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Ranked choice doesn’t really help here. Generally right-wing/conservative/wannabe-gilead voters aggregate around the republican candidate. Libertarians get stupid but there are very few of them and they start off stupid.

      On the left? We have a LOT more infighting but the only viable candidates at the Presidential level (and most, but not all, states) are the Democrat.

      So what does ranked choice get us? Okay, everyone picks their favorite third party first. They all get eliminated. So who voted for the Democrat and who voted for the republican?

      It also becomes a question of what variation of ranked choice voting is used. Because, depending on the elimination model, you are just normalizing spoiler candidates.

      And… there is the very good argument that we already have ranked choice voting in a sense. Primaries. it happens less when there is an incumbent but everyone picks their absolute favorite candidate who most closely represents them. The majority of that then becomes the candidate we vote for come November.

      Nah, I think the real answer is to just get rid of the electorcal college at the presidential level and just do popular votes. We have the technology.


      I’ll also add on that there is a lot of theory (and even demonstrable-ish evidence) that you tend to consolidate around two-ish candidates even in the models that are fairly amenable to third parties. There are a LOT of question marks because this isn’t the kind of study you can really isolate, but even the third party heavy models (most parliamentary governments, for example) tend to have two dominating parties with a third or fourth that are “just strong enough to get concessions”.

      • venusaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        Reforming the electoral college is definitely needed as well, but a much longer runway since it likely requires a constitutional amendment. You can implement RCV without forgoing electoral college reform or abolition. No single change will fix it all, but RCV is beneficial in moving towards democracy and has a lot of momentum already.

        I think after people learn and get used to RCV (and when older generations die), their voting styles will change. No more voting solely out of fear. It also requires the major (wealthy) candidates to align more to the smaller (less wealthy) candidates. There’s really no reason to be against it. In some states they offer both styles of ballots so you can just vote for one person if you’d like. The only downside is that it can be confusing to new people.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          None of that addresses the points I made outside of a nebulous “wouldn’t it be great if all the boomers died” which… no arguments.

          Again, it all depends on what criteria are used to handle the rankings. Because a LOT of models will inherently favor the “side” that can rally behind a single candidate. Which is what we see under a lot of parliamentary models.

          I am ALL for election reform. But “it can’t hurt” is not a reason to enact a heavy change. Especially when… it CAN hurt and discriminate against different demographics.

          As for “the only downside is that it can be confusing to new people”: You should HANG with my buddy CHAD. Still hurting from that debacle.

          • venusaur@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Wasn’t trying to address your points because they’re just speculation. We’ve never had RCV nationwide for federal elections so can’t say how it would affect the way people vote. I don’t think the 2 party ruling system goes away with RCV, but it’s a step towards making politics more equitable. There are only benefits to giving voters more options. It’s not that “it can’t hurt”. It’s that it will benefit voters.

            How does RCV discriminate? Which demographics?

            Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.

            • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              If we “can’t say how it would affect the way people vote” then what is the point? There are a lot of different voting systems and if you are going to put the effort in to cause a mass upheaval… you need to have a reason. Like I said, I very much favor just getting rid of the electoral college as a good solution because it is the same procedure we currently have but now it means EVERY vote matters at every level (rather than just at every level except POTUS…)

              And, again, we can just look at the current election. Basically every republican is fine with trumpian politics and refuse to even acknowledge they would vote against the orange fuckstain when they are “condemning” his behavior. Whereas the left? We can’t stop shitting on Biden. That translates to third party spoilers. Which is kind of the underlying issue of why we see right wing fascism on the rise globally. Because it is a lot easier to rally behind “We all hate this demographic” rather than “Well, I want UBI” “No, I want health care” “Fuck you all, the biggest issue we have is foreign policy”.

              Any voting system is prone to errors and any change will have growing pains. Doesn’t mean you don’t move forward. People need a way to vote for who they want, not who they don’t want. RCV is one solution. Doesn’t impede on any others.

              Moving forward is something you do with thought. Rather than “Well, I’m bored. Let’s redo everything because it might be better”.

              • venusaur@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                To assume that all of the progress people are making towards RCV is without thought is incredibly ignorant. Lots of resources you can research to understand the benefits, how it works, and case studies for where it’s working now.

                https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting-information/#the-impacts-of-rcv

                https://fairvote.org/news-and-analysis/#blog

                If you don’t support RCV for some reason, just say that. You have to criticize those who are working towards something that’s actually benefiting voters.

                You can sit around and wait for electoral reform, but change happens in baby steps. You don’t just jump to a constitutional amendment if nobody can get behind something like RCV.

                • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Yeah. This happens with basically every “political movement”. You have some people who actually have put the thought in. And then you have hordes of people who can’t even explain simple things like “how does this not just embolden spoilers” or how does this meaningfully solve the two party problem" (a problem which, again, is prevalent even in more praised election systems).

                  Let alone “Oh, the only problem is people might get a bit confused”

                  People just see “oh, it is different so it must be better” and ignore all other aspects of it. It is what led to the rise of libertarianism in the 90s and tankie dumbasses in the 10s.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        5 months ago

        Of course it helps. Sure, the first election wouldn’t see much change, but RCV emboldens third parties to exist and would give them a viable path towards displacing the establishment. Right now there is NO path.

      • EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        We all know you only want far right neolibs to be president, you don’t have to try to be sly about your conservatism :3

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      It would be nice if they did that for the Democratic primaries.

      • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”

        Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          They did not override that one. Sanders did not even win the non superdelegates. That’s not to say the 2016 Democratic primary was not fucked. Party officials clearly had a preference and were obviously pushing Clinton. Showing the super delegates planned counts before they actually voted made it seem like Sanders had no chance. They need to minimize the number of super delegates so that they can only decide really close primaries.

          • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            Eh, fair enough. Undermined, cheated, manipulated, schemed, swindled, deceived, duped, defrauded, etc might have been a better description.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Sanders was crushed by Clinton in the 2016 primary elections. It was clear pretty much from the start that she was going to win. You take away all the super delegates, she still demolishes him. Did they show some favoritism towards her? Sure. Did they call him some bad names in private emails? Yes. Did she get a few questions before a debate? Yes. Is there any evidence that the election was rigged and stolen from Sanders? No, none at all.

          This insistence that the Sanders was somehow robbed of the 2016 nomination (or 2020 nomination at that) is equivalent to Trump’s claim that he was robbed in 2020.

          • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            America is not a progressive country and if you are progressive you will be eternally disappointed with it.

            Read more history if you disagree.

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Can we please not continue to relitigate this until the end of time? We will be in line at the republican death camps and people will still be arguing that sanders won in 2016. It serves no purpose other than supporting the idiots who would rather a republican win than a democrat who isn’t Sanders.

            When they start screaming stop the count or restart the count or whatever: Smile, nod, and ignore.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              5 months ago

              I don’t really think I’m going to convince that poster. I know, like Trump supporters, they are probably long gone and no amount of pointing out that they have no evidence is going to convince them that the DNC not screwed him, Sanders would have won. I just watch young people shifting towards the right, and it’s probably partially because of these dopes spreading this lie about the democrats, so I’m speaking to anyone who might come after them.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  When you actually offer up something other than “they said nasty things about him!” then we can talk. So far tho, nothing.

              • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing. A lot of them probably HAVE become tankies but… the Sanders campaign was already very heavily buoyed by tankies online. Because it would have been shooting fish in a barrel for the candidate most known for “fun nicknames” to be up against a guy who used to be a meme about how c-span was boring and actively refused to even say “While I think the socioeconomic model had a lot of benefits, I oppose the fascist communist regimes of olde”.

                But also? I know a few of the dumbest “Bernie or bust” morons you will ever see who focused that anger toward working with the Democrats to get considerably less shitty downballot candidates. And that is what the lesson should have been.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing.

                  It certainly turns them off of the Democrats. So maybe not a shift to the right, but certainly conditions where it increases the chance that the right is going to win. If Bernie bros had just accepted the outcome and then coalesced around Clinton, she likely would have won and we wouldn’t be in the same mess we’re in now.

          • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.” (From the wikipedia link below).

            From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign. The Washington Post reported: “Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.”

            Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.

            Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              5 months ago

              The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.”

              We all know and agree that they said bad things about him, but do you really think making “inexcusable remarks” in private actually supports the claim that he was “heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged”?

              Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.

              The only “concrete” thing you cite is that “they said nasty things about him in private.” No actual evidence of them doing anything to undermine his chances. The worst concrete thing that came out is that Clinton got some debate questions early, but do we really think that is going to lead to a 12 point swing? No way.

              • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                5 months ago

                Convenient you skip over the undermine his campaign portion of my previous comment. But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.

                It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Convenient you skip over the undermine

                  Because it offered nothing concrete. It just says the emails “suggest” this, but doesn’t actually offer up anything of substance as to how it was done.

                  But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.

                  And yet, all you can point to is them saying nasty things in private.

                  It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.

                  I’m challenging the belief that Sanders had some chance in the 2016 primary against Clinton, and that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him. I understand that the leaked emails were massively consequential.

            • btaf45@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              5 months ago

              From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak:

              From the Kremlin hacking operation that passed both true and false info to Assange who said in a memo that they wanted Treason Trump to win which was documented in the Mueller report.

              Why did Putin NOT leak RNC memos? Because he has been blackmailing the Republican Party ever since.

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”

          That is some Trumpian level of bullshit. They cannot do that because it is against the Charter since the 1950’s. And yes legally the DNC could change their own charter but so can the RNC. Changing party charters to nullify primaries would spell certain doom for that party.

          Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election

          You and the Kremlin are bitter about how the Dem primary voters treated us Bernie supporters in the 2016 election. Got it.

      • GraniteM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I was curious about this. Since political parties run their own primaries, then they can decide to use whatever voting system they want. I suspect that RCV primaries would produce a candidate that is more competitive in the general election (though I don’t know enough about electoral math or demographics to be sure). I’m certain that RCV has a tendency to discourage scorched earth campaign tactics, so party candidates would be less prone to trying to destroy one another.

    • robocall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      My city does ranked choice voting, and it’s great! I would love to see it at the state level.

      • venusaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s awesome! What city? What was the process for getting it on the ballot and what helped getting it passed?

        • robocall@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          San Francisco has had ranked choice voting since 2004. IIRC they called it “instant run-off voting” and it would save from having a run off election for the mayor and other elected officials.

    • chetradley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m a fan of STAR voting myself, but anything is better than the first past the post system we have now.

      • neidu2@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Could you give a quick primer on what STAR voting is? I got a star from my teacher some 30 years ago, but somehow I doubt the system is based on those…

        • chetradley@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          STAR, or Score Then Automatic Runoff, differs from RCV in that instead of ranking the candidates in order of preference, you can assign a rating to each, out of five stars. All of the stars are added for each candidate (score), and the ones with the fewest stars are eliminated (automatic runoff), then the scores are added again, another runoff, etc.

          So say you love candidate C, you dislike candidate B, and you hate candidate A.

          • In an RCV system, you’d rank C,B,A, and if C is eliminated, your full support goes behind B, but in the initial scoring round, only your top ranked candidate gets your full vote.
          • In a STAR system, you’d maybe give C five stars, B two stars, and A zero stars. You’re still giving some support to B for the initial scoring round, but most of your support goes to C.

          So the biggest difference is that in the initial scoring round, your preference for candidates other than your first choice are considered. Check out this video, which gives a good breakdown of voting systems and how they account for spoilage: https://youtu.be/oFqV2OtJOOg?si=8sLYiYpA7EnOt94i

      • venusaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        5 months ago

        If Star has traction in your city I say go for it! RCV just seems to have the most momentum.

    • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I think ranked choice voting would give us RFK as president

      Edit: that was assuming we had these same candidates only as ranked choice obviously we would have more candidates

      • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        You gotta consider how many viable candidates aren’t throwing the hat in the ring because there is no chance for them to get even close thanks to the current system, plus they’d be labeled as spoilers.

      • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Honestly my knowledge of ranked choice voting is that it works better for reps other than the president, and that our basically one guy wins it all form for presidential elections feels like ranked choice would work less. I’m willing to be wrong. I’m not sure if I actually like systems where the majority party picks the head of state, but it does feel like ra ked choice voting makes it matter more there.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah. Nobody wants to acknowledge it because they watched a youtube and define themselves by “ranked choice” (and most don’t even know the specifics of the criteria they are supporting…)

          Ranked Choice makes a LOT of sense at the county and state level. Because that is where third party candidates already have good odds if they actually represent the will of the people.

          At the presidential? And with electoral college nonsense? The amount of money required to run a campaign and the tendency for certain chuddy demographics to rally behind one shitstain mean that you only really have two viable parties and ranked choice, at best, is a noop. At worst it enables spoilers.

          Which… is also why a lot of parliament based governments still tend to have two major parties. They just have more splitting but… we already do when you realize that AOC and Hakeem Jeffries are in the same party.

  • Ballistic_86@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I thought this was an Onion article at first. Of course most people voting Biden are only doing so because the only other option is convicted felon Donald Trump.

    Biden is a loser president in a loser system. But if the option is him or Insurrectionist/Felon/Rapist Donald Trump, it is the option people will vote for.

  • Nimo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    I would have thought Biden supporters would support Biden. This is hardly a revelation.

  • kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    “People voting for watching paint dry instead of poking sticks in their eyes appear to be mostly motivated by avoiding sticks…in their eyes.”