I absolutely think that's reason enough, but I also have the luxury of preferential voting so I've never had to consider voting for a 'lesser of two evils' even if the degree is quite small.
It would be nice if we had the same, but we'd have to somehow break the duopoly to get it passed in the first place. I'm not sure how that would be feasible without a massive tilt toward a viable third party in the existing system, which seems like a remote possibility.
A preferential voting system just means you get to say what you would like while your vote gets shuffled around to a party that doesn't support any of your views. Its a way to manufacturing consent by making people think their voice is being heard on single issues.
Representative democracy is a system where you get to vote on who represents the interests of the super rich. Politicians exist as a buffer between the working class and the ownership class but in capitalist nations they work exclusivcely for the ownership class (aka capitalists). The ownership class through its politicians offer the working class minor concessions or threats to subdue them so capitalist can continue exploiting them. Different politicians offer different methods that the ownership class will accept. Regardless of what they say, their policy will be to do the least possible to appease their voters and the most they can to further enrich their owners.
Preferential voting just makes it easier for the capitalists to know which crumb to throw voters next.
I don't disagree at all, it just makes my voting choices more straightforward. What I find most sad about it, though, is that even though we could vote for any third party we want, the vast majority still vote for one of the big two basically identical on policy parties.
The system is functioning exactly as intended and must be destroyed. They will continue to vote for red and blue until someone tells/shows them that it is not in their best interest. So you agitate, read political theory (so you know what you are talking about), and radicalize anyone who will listen.
Isn't this reason enough? If we don't draw the line at genocide, where do we draw the line?
I absolutely think that's reason enough, but I also have the luxury of preferential voting so I've never had to consider voting for a 'lesser of two evils' even if the degree is quite small.
It would be nice if we had the same, but we'd have to somehow break the duopoly to get it passed in the first place. I'm not sure how that would be feasible without a massive tilt toward a viable third party in the existing system, which seems like a remote possibility.
A preferential voting system just means you get to say what you would like while your vote gets shuffled around to a party that doesn't support any of your views. Its a way to manufacturing consent by making people think their voice is being heard on single issues.
Representative democracy is a system where you get to vote on who represents the interests of the super rich. Politicians exist as a buffer between the working class and the ownership class but in capitalist nations they work exclusivcely for the ownership class (aka capitalists). The ownership class through its politicians offer the working class minor concessions or threats to subdue them so capitalist can continue exploiting them. Different politicians offer different methods that the ownership class will accept. Regardless of what they say, their policy will be to do the least possible to appease their voters and the most they can to further enrich their owners.
Preferential voting just makes it easier for the capitalists to know which crumb to throw voters next.
I don't disagree at all, it just makes my voting choices more straightforward. What I find most sad about it, though, is that even though we could vote for any third party we want, the vast majority still vote for one of the big two basically identical on policy parties.
The system is functioning exactly as intended and must be destroyed. They will continue to vote for red and blue until someone tells/shows them that it is not in their best interest. So you agitate, read political theory (so you know what you are talking about), and radicalize anyone who will listen.