this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
304 points (79.5% liked)

Memes

47434 readers
1427 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 3 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 10 points 5 hours 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.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 22 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

Obama's legacy:

Biden's legacy:

The democrats are a brutal, vicious, genocidal party.

[–] rusticus@lemm.ee 1 points 24 minutes ago

Ah yes, the hilariously idiotic progressive purity test. Biden is the most progressive president in the last 50 years and you morons call him genocide Joe.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 58 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (11 children)

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

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 11 points 12 hours ago (4 children)

If anything Democrats have moved further to the right recently

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 65 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I'd take some less evil, please.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

Sorry. The Democrats sued less evil off the ballot.

[–] Sibshops@lemm.ee 25 points 22 hours 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?

[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

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

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 13 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours 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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

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.

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 0 points 7 hours ago

I do advocate for it, I'm a proud member of the Forward Party.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 27 points 22 hours 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..."

[–] Sibshops@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

I imagine it wouldn't be difficult at least at the primary level. The same party has the power and they can get rid of less desirable candidates like Fetterman.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 17 points 21 hours ago
[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 18 points 21 hours 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 22 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours 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)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›