this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
406 points (79.0% liked)

Memes

49460 readers
1351 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 75 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'd take some less evil, please.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Sorry. The Democrats sued less evil off the ballot.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 58 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (25 children)

This meme made sense in 2012, not when the Republican Party has decided to be the Anti-Democratic Party.

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 23 points 1 month ago (4 children)

If anything Democrats have moved further to the right recently

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 43 points 1 month ago (15 children)

Obama's legacy:

Biden's legacy:

The democrats are a brutal, vicious, genocidal party.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago

The Ratchet effect.

With this current trump slop, the democrats can shift farther right than they've ever been and gain tons of moderates and even conservatives who just feel sour on trump, and obviously they get the liberal moderates, because trump slop.

Republicans shift right by 10, dems shift right by 6 and seem progressive in comparison.

Billionaires continue getting richer, and we all get fucked. Eat, sleep, repeat.

[–] Sibshops@lemm.ee 25 points 1 month ago (7 children)

I don't understand why people who think this don't advocate for ranked choice voting. Seems like it would solve this issue, right?

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Even if it would, how would it ever get passed when the people who would need to pass it are the ones who are only in office because the system works the way it currently does?

This is just a recurring theme I've found when talking with liberals. They like to think about and suggest all sorts of policy ideas as though all we're missing are some smart ideas nobody has thought of. It's one thing to say we should have this, but it's another to have any idea of how it'd be possible to do. Since they have no actual analysis of the system, they'll just turn around and tell you to vote or call your representative. "We should get money out of politics!" "Yeah, well we checked with the people giving us money and they said no. So..."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It doesn't. There are plenty of bourgeois democracies that don't use FPTP for all their voting: Japan, Australia, South Korea for some of their elections. Doesn't make a difference (except it might make the bribery a bit more expensive, since you have to buy off more political parties than just two).

The fundamental problem is capital standing above political power. If it does so, then no amount of alternative voting systems can fix the issue. Socialism is the only answer.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You have a few options for enacting ranked choice voting at the national level:

  1. Win hundreds, possibly thousands, of state-level House and Senate seats with the largest grass roots voter mobilization ever seen in the US to, a) enact legislation in all 50 states or b) ratify an amendment to the constitution, that mandates it.

  2. Kill enough republicans in a national civil war to make sure that when elections happen, there aren't enough republicans left to win an election, then enact the above.

  3. Overthrow the entire US government in a much bloodier national coup and set up whatever government you want.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Kill enough republicans in a national civil war

And democrats, too. Don't pretend they're not just as responsible for keeping fptp voting, their party depends on it. If you don't believe me, look into how coordinated the GOP and Democrats were when suing PSL and the Green party to keep them off several state ballots (and severely whittle down their grassroots funds with corporate-money lawfare). Spoiler: there was no overlap.

It's one party, two wings.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

No, RCV wouldn't. The fundamental problem of electoral politics being a game between factions pre-approved by the bourgeoisie won't change, there are even safeguards preventing unwanted change that losing parties and government branches can pull in the rare event a worker party won.

It's the perfect carrot, it won't get passed nor would it change much.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

They won't allow it because they'll lose power with ranked choice.

[–] Commiunism@beehaw.org 9 points 1 month ago

Imma be real as an European, we kinda have the same problem here even with better voting systems. You either vote for "nothing ever happens" parties or literal Russia funded reactionary nazis.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I’m honestly looking for work in the EU. If I can land a job, I’ll get established and then bring my family over.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wiLD0@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Relative to the other fully developed countries, a mainstream Democrat is a homeopathic liberal.

[–] esc27@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Scenario I've been playing with:

Suppose you are kidnapped by two people. They tell you that one of them will shoot you and then let you go, but you get to decide who shoots. Person A says he will shoot you in the head. Person B says he will shoot you in the shoulder. Which do you choose?

The more think about this the more I like it. Both persons are clearly awful and contributed to the situation. Both could offer better choices but refuse. Both are rather similar in outcomes. But one is clearly worse.

Is it rational to choose to be shot at all? Is it rational to not choose the better of two alternatives?

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

If you don't choose, then someone else chooses for you

[–] PineRune@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

Then the people who claim to love you choose for you and say that getting shot in the head would be better for you. Any attempt to convince them otherwise is met with absolute disbelief.

[–] djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago (4 children)

This is a false dichotomy though. I'd argue the fact that "escape" doesn't even cross your mind in this hypothetical scenario is damning.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (10 children)

Yeah this is totally warranted given the recent news. I mean, one side trying to expand medicare, the other gutting it. One side trying to close Guantanamo bay, the other opening concentration camps on it. One side trying to get money out of politics, the other side destroying democracy for want of more money.

Totally helpful, totally warranted, OP. Well done. Way to go. You're so cool and centrist.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›