4 ms·
>Vote for the party which is most critical on them. >Currently Republicans though it used to be the Democrats. This statement shows the absurdity of a two-par
by jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
>Vote for the party which is most critical on them.
>Currently Republicans though it used to be the Democrats.
This statement shows the absurdity of a two-party political system.
Voting for either party will not change anything. You need to vote for particular politicians, and if that's not possible, then there is no way at all for reform or change.
- h0l0cube 5y agoAdd to this that the Trump administration had the chance to pardon Assange, and there was a strong and impassioned campaign from his partner (of which he shares 2 children) putting the case forward, but instead they pardoned actual war criminals. So I'm not sure the Republican administration/voter base really cares that much for JA either. The military have to visibly protect their own so they can assure the next gifted killing-machine asset that they can indulge in what they joined up for.
- roenxi 5y agoIf you always reliably vote for (Party X) then paradoxically you are less likely to get your concerns addressed because they mainly need swing voters to win elections. People who switch parties to vote for their pet issue probably have a disproportionate impact on the outcomes, because both parties gain an incentive to take a position on that issue.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> If you always reliably vote for (Party X) then paradoxically you are less likely to get your concerns addressed because they mainly need swing voters to win elections Nope, they need to mobilize their voters and demobilize the opposition. The media narrative about the importance of swing voters is greatly exaggerated, but it justifies election year media drama like showcasing “undecided voter” panels at debates.