Hexbear

1 point

2 months ago

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.

report

emizeko [they/them]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

13 points

2 months ago

spoiler: it’s not democratic and never has been

report

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

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.

report

MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

8 points

2 months ago

I did say ‘claims’.

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).

report

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

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.

report

MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

4 points

2 months ago

I’m not saying you must vote for the party, we were originially just talking about the presidential election

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.

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.

Here you are saying it again, as you have dozens of times throughout this thread, as you well know.

To be effective it has to be a large enough movement, making it’s requirements known clearly, for there to be a measurable effect.

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.

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.

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?

report

[ - ]

1 point

2 months ago

Yes, you are. And the elected president is the head of the party.

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.

It has no effect without the threat of combined removal of votes

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.

You assert this repeatedly but never offer what those requirements are or how to achieve them.

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.

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.

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.

report