Also Democrats: Ve shall round up und eradicate ze undesirables from society!!! Ve shall put zem into ze camps and ve shall enslave them to benefit ze superior class!!!
https://fxtwitter.com/lastreetcare/status/1806869510483476829
Also Democrats: Ve shall round up und eradicate ze undesirables from society!!! Ve shall put zem into ze camps and ve shall enslave them to benefit ze superior class!!!
https://fxtwitter.com/lastreetcare/status/1806869510483476829
If there aren't enough people making a noise about what's happening, why would they change? Getting that critical mass is the hard part. Ultimately this system claims to be democratic, so outcomes only changes under sufficient electoral presure.
spoiler: it's not democratic and never has been
I did say 'claims'. The point is that unless a significant proportion of the electorate are demanding a specific change it's less likely to be made. If enough people demand it in exchange for votes a politician can't ignore the issue without losing their next election and being replaced.
So your arguement is that to change an undemocratic system you must only work within the boundries of the facade of that system (electorialism), whilst also not doing that (you must still vote for the party).
I'm not saying you must vote for the party, we were originially just talking about the presidential election. However, individuals choosing not to vote for the party does tend to give the benefit to the opponent, which may not be a good choice in the current political climate. To be effective it has to be a large enough movement, making it's requirements known clearly, for there to be a measurable effect. Without that there is no impetus for the system to change. Get enough people demanding better than FPTP voting and you'll find a candidate that supports it. Find enough candidates across the nation who support it and it can be made to happen. Fix that and other changes become easier to achieve.
Yes, you are. And the elected president is the head of the party. Again, for someone so hung up on it, you don't actually seem to know anything about how elections or electoral politics work.
Here you are saying it again, as you have dozens of times throughout this thread, as you well know.
Plenty of movements throughout history have done this. Polling data shows this. It has no effect without the threat of combined removal of votes and (at least the implicit threat of) violent opposition.
You assert this repeatedly but never offer what those requirements are or how to achieve them. Only methods that directly limit the ability to do that. So please quantify your assertion and your strategy.
But I can't vote for those candidates because I have to vote for the supposedly 'lesser evil' of the two parties that oppose it, right? That's your original premise here.
Also, FPTP has been used in the UK since the middle ages despite the fact that it's always faced opposition from voters. So what's your timeline for this reform via narrow electoralism?
The elected president is typically the head of one of the parties, yes, although I haven't seen anything saying they must be (please let me know if there is a rule about that). However, they are separate to the party, being the executive rather than legislative branch. The way I see it, this year's election is uniquely evil, in that on the one hand you have Biden and on the other hand you have trump, who has stated his desire to be a dictator, and who wants to take all the worst positions the current administration have taken and make them even more extreme, whilst also stripping even more rights. Neither option is good, one is worse. Given that one of the two will be the next president of the United States of America, I would advocate for the less extreme one.
Yes, that's what I am saying. Apologies if I wasn't clear this time. Without that, no matter how big a movement is it'll be ineffective. However unless it is large enough the removal of votes will either achieve nothing or be counter productive by letting a worse option in.
As I mentioned to someone else, look at the margin between the first and second place parties, and you probably need a movement of that order of magnitude to be able to swing the election. Then you need all of those people making contact with their representative or potential representative and laying out exactly what is needed to get their vote. It's not complicated, just tough to get enough people to agree with you.
As I said, initially we were talking about the presidential election, where I would say that ensuring trump doesn't get in is vital. Swinging one or both houses to the Dems would also derisk trump being president. If you support an issue, say voting systems, you need enough people with you to ensure you are heard. Deciding to withhold your vote at a late stage, without explaining to the candidates exactly why will achieve nothing.
You literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about. The president, senators, congresspeople, and all the way down are all the party dipshit. Go and learn the absolute basics. No investigation, no right to speak.
I know how you see it, because you're copy and pasting the same ignorant vibes-based nonesense I've already addressed elsewhere but you couldn't reply to or defend. Next.
No, it's not, because you advocate against even threatening to withhold voting for a candidate. That is the original premise of your entire arguement you came here to make.
(Also, don't think I didn't notice you cut the rest of my quote to make it only about electoralism again and not other pressures)
Anything but assured victory is unacceptable and should not be risked. Also you must limit yourself to only a very narrow set of activities, during a tiny time window, that make that kind of organising impossible, while strengthing your opponent. This is definitely a good faith arguement.
You're repeating your contradictory circular logic again here because you can't engage with me addressing this point elsewhere. Are you not bored yet?
Straw man bullshit because you can't and won't address the actual points people, including me have made elsewhere in the thread. No one is advocating for this. You're arguing against a position that you made up because your orginal premise is, was, and has been shown to be bullshit concern trolling throughout this thread.
They're of the same party, yes, but doing a different part of the job of governance. I was trying to draw a distinction between the vote for president, and the votes for senators congress people and all the rest. My point was that there is a single president and so getting the least terrible is better than getting the more terrible. This does assume we agree on least and most terrible, but see below on that. The rest of the votes it makes more sense to do as you're saying, although I'd be worried about ending up with trump as president and both houses being controlled by the republicans. Having at least one of those three democrat controlled would reduce the harm a somewhat, and having more dem controlled would reduce it further. Not eliminate it, but make the situation worse more slowly.
There are only six realistically possible outcomes from the next election; trump or biden as president and either two dem houses, one of each, or two republican houses. Absolutely none of those are a good option, but one will happen, so it seems sensible to try to push towards the least harm.
Ok, are you saying that you see absolutely no difference in outcome between trump and biden being president? None at all? Because I know too many people who'll be actively harmed by trump being president who would not suffer that level of hard under biden to be willing to say that myself.
I was advocating primarily for avoiding trump being the next president, and suggesting that given the electoral reality as it stands, not deliberately acting to increase the chance of republicans being elected elsewhere. Withholding you vote is a sensible tactic, so long as the candidates in question know exactly why you are withholding it, and can adjust to that without losing more of their other voters. The trouble here is that for a lot of policies they all agree, so you withhold your vote from everyone. Fair enough, but there are also issues they disagree on, and now you need to consider those too.
Sorry, I'm not deliberately dropping bits, but people are replying to me on about 25 different threads, ranging from the rather curt 'fuck off' through the somewhat intemperate, to quite thoughtful discussions suggesting approaches that might meaningfully reduce the harm in this cycle whilst also hopefully leading to longer term change, so it's a little hard to keep up, especially when life is also occurring. I thought that bit got to the heart of what you were saying, as the previous bit (Plenty of movements throughout history have done this. Polling data shows this.) seemed to be agreeing with me. The call to, or implicit threat of violence, is, I feel, less necessary until all other options are exhausted.
I'm not saying it is unacceptable or should not be risked, I'm just pointing out that the outcome is likely to be neutral or (more) detrimental unless there is a large enough number to make it a more sure proposition. Sometimes that (more) detrimental outcome is worth risking, perhaps you see that it is in this election, but as I said above, I see trumps stated desires as harmful enough that they should be avoided. The rest of the ticket is sort of insurance against the presidential vote going to him, and so certainly easier to decide to withhold.
I may very well have misunderstood various peoples position then, as I haven't seen anyone say they're actually engaging with their candidates, only that they want to withhold their votes. If that engagement is implied I do apologise for misunderstanding everyone.