3 ms·
when the people who endorse the "status quo" (which is itself rapidly shifting if you track the US political sphere before the modern day) number in the million
by LocalH 6mo ago
when the people who endorse the "status quo" (which is itself rapidly shifting if you track the US political sphere before the modern day) number in the millions, it's a bit more than slightly
normalize supporting a proper civics test before the right to vote is granted. you don't have to agree with any political topics, but you have to understand how politics actually work before you can cast a vote
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago> it's a bit more than slightly I've voted in New York and Wyoming. In a general election, my Presidential vote does not practically count. As a result, I can typically throw it for a third party as a messaging vote. (If New York or Wyoming are turning out to be contested, the fight was won elesewhere.) If you're in a swing state and you don't vote, you're about as important for the Presdiential general-election campaign you would not have voted for if you bothered to show up as an actual opposition voter. (Depressing turnout among unlikely voters who might vote for the other candidate is a real, precedented, cosultants-who-specialise-in-this-exclusively social-media-advertising turnout strategy.)
- LocalH 6mo agoand if everyone who hates both the Rs and the Ds in the non-swing states voted third-party, and could manage to get behind the same party (that's the hard part), then suddenly the swing states would be much less important. the point is, we need completely new thought in government to get out of the two-party duopoly that's currently eating the US from the inside. george washington hated political parties. we should strive to think like him a bit more