6 ms·
Remember “leftist “ and transgender activists are terrorists now. First they came for…
by conception 4mo ago
Remember “leftist “ and transgender activists are terrorists now.
First they came for…
- whattheheckheck 4mo agoWhat's the actual antidote to this? 5calls.org?
- estearum 4mo agoVoting and getting everyone you know to vote
- p-e-w 4mo agoTurnout in the past few elections was already extraordinarily high. Clearly this isn’t the answer. And neither is protesting, considering that 4 of the 5 largest demonstrations in US history happened in the past 10 years and achieved nothing.
- estearum 4mo agoWell right... you also need to vote for the correct ("less-bad") people and get your friends to do the same. Voting for the worse people makes things worse.
- gs17 4mo agoYou also need the option to vote for "less-bad" people. Where I am now, my vote doesn't matter, even if it means the "less-bad" people win with no competition (as opposed to where I moved from where things were skewed the opposite way).
- Retric 4mo agoSomewhere between just going out to vote and revolution sits moving to an area where your vote counts. I’ve not quite reached that threshold, but I avoid moving to DC due to the lack of voting rights.
- godelski 4mo agoVote strategically. Candidates notice btw. So if you're in a heavily red state but you're blue, then vote in the primaries for the more centered Republican. If you're in a heavily blue state but red, do the opposite. Either way this actually helps because more people are centered and we're getting wilder and wilder candidates because there's increased tribalism. They go to the extremes because they get more voters that way. They figured out that the mainstay voters will just end up voting left or right regardless, and that by catering to the extremes it actually pulls the mainstream voters too. (Both Reps and Dems are using this strategy) Remember, you don't have to vote for the person you actually like. And keep doing this until we get a sane voting system which can embed actual preference (any of the cardinal systems: i.e. Approval or STAR). This strategy still works with ordinal systems (i.e. Ranked Choice) because a weak spoiler is still really good at splitting the vote (happened in a pretty famous Alaska election).
- usefulcat 4mo agoTotally agree. I did exactly this in the recent primaries, and then got to vote again in a runoff. I think of it this way: in a state where one party is clearly dominant, most offices will end up being held by members of that party. That means that the primaries for that party actually matter more than the general election.
- dubya 4mo agoRepublicans in my state, TN, having eliminated the last Democrat congressional district, now want to close primaries, precisely to prevent strategic voting.
- gs17 4mo agoThat still requires the options. The next election for me is a primary, with only one race that both has more than one candidate and is competitive AFAIK. The two viable candidates (who will both move on regardless) are similar enough that I don't have a preference. WA has an interesting, non-partisan, top-two-move-on system for the non-presidential primaries.
- rectang 4mo agoRanked Choice Voting makes it easier to vote for “less bad” candidates. RCV also tends to work against polarization, since it rewards candidates who are at least acceptable to a broad swath of the electorate. It may not be the “answer” for all that ails the American political system, but it would help. ETA: Unlike many other reforms it's also doable within the constraints of the current constitutional order and is hard for SCOTUS to torpedo (though I suppose I shouldn't underestimate SCOTUS).
- nerdsniper 4mo agoApproval Voting would be an easier pill to swallow for most americans. It’s hard to explain “yeah Trump got the most #1 votes but still lost” and easy to explain “this other candidate got the most checkmarks”. https://www.rangevoting.org/CompChart.html#votsysts https://www.rangevoting.org/CompChart.html#votsysts
- Dylan16807 4mo agoWe already have a system where the person with the most #1 votes can lose. A third party candidate that only got a couple states would be able to prevent a majority. And that's electoral votes. Counting actual people has the most voted candidate lose all the time. Approval voting would be an improvement over the status quo but it makes it a lot harder for me to influence the choice between candidates I like less. If I do check my third choice I risk helping them beat my top two. If I don't check my third choice then I risk them losing to even worse options.
- AnthonyMouse 4mo ago> We already have a system where the person with the most #1 votes can lose. A third party candidate that only got a couple states would be able to prevent a majority. And people complain about it. If you were trying to make a change from some other status quo to that, it would be a significant impediment. > Approval voting would be an improvement over the status quo but it makes it a lot harder for me to influence the choice between candidates I like less. If I do check my third choice I risk helping them beat my top two. Approval voting is the range compressed version of score voting. Instead of scoring each candidate on a scale of 1 to 10, it's score each candidate on a scale of 0 or 1. Use score voting and you can give your favorite candidate a different score than your second favorite without giving them the same score as your least favorite. Both of them are still better than RCV.
- deaux 4mo ago> Turnout in the past few elections was already extraordinarily high. In a sense, this in itself is the issue. It's long-term _worse_ to vote for the "lesser of two serious evils". This extreme "long-term pain for short-term gain" attitude is what's gotten the US to where it is. If in 2016 of 2024 even 20% of the dems would've stayed home or voted third party, the DNC's continuous forcing of awful corpocrats with zero charisma would've become completely untenable and Trump would've been limited to one term. Yet instead they were rewarded for it, so you'll see Newsom get the candidacy and presidency in 2028 (if 2028 even happens at this point), and then in 2032 you'll get something like Hegseth or Thiel winning and it's all over. There is an answer: relentlessly vote, but only for candidates who are actually slightly decent - including third-party - and otherwise stay at home. "Relentlessly" means "at every level", including locally from the very bottom, all the way up. The whole idea of "third-party voting is a complete waste in the US" is incredibly dumb because a vote for someone who loses isn't a wasted vote. It shows the others that there's a voter there who can be convinced if catered to, if they select a better candidate. The powers that be have done a fantastic job of brainwashing the entire population of the myth that anyone who _doesn't_ go out and vote for either major candidate is a morally bankrupt person, because it directly benefits them. The reply to this will be "well it's too late for that now!". It's wrong because the alternative doesn't help you one bit. You're just wishing for a miracle, that in 4 years something happens, kicking the can down the road making things worse long term. And that's actually what's got you here. It's a symptom of the terminal disease which has infected all layers of American society and has gotten it to where it's at: short-termism. Everyone just looks at the next quarter, the next election. China's ascendency is 1:1 tied to doing the exact opposite. Some smartypants will now point "but zero Covid", great you found a potential exception, now look at the other 90% of policy. Every time I've explained this I've gotten instantly downvoted without a single reply making an argument against it, because it's too painful for people to admit that they've been part of the road to where the US is at. And again, short-termism: rather feel the short-term tiny dopamine hit by slamming that downvote button than thinking about it. Let's see if this happens again.
- amanaplanacanal 4mo agoYou are saying the candidates are forced on us by someone else. But that's just wrong, we choose the candidates. Anybody can run, there is no secret cabal that decides who can run and who can't.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- SmirkingRevenge 4mo agoThe trend has been going that direction, where low turnout elections favor Ds and high turnout favors Rs. But only kind of... that holds when Trump is on the ballot. Trump seems to activate a segment of low-info, low-propensity voters who stay home when their guy isn't on the ballot. Things will probably get scrambled again once Trump is gone though. And don't discount protests. It's crucially important to have big public and forceful displays of united opposition. The regime is unlikely to be toppled by protests, but they will weaken it. That really matters. In an authoritarian take-over institutions are the front-lines, not the masses. Think colleges, media, industry, courts, legal firms, local governments, etc. The dilemma those institutions will face is to follow rule-of-law or submit to authoritarian corruption. Authoritarians win when those institutions decide it's safer to submit than it is to follow the law. And when institutions (and the people within them) feel like they are twisting in the wind alone and nobody cares, they are more likely to buckle. Protest movements help reinforce the rule-of-law side of that calculation. (The rise and fall of Orban is a great lesson on all of this) Also see: https://essayx.substack.com/p/the-35-percent-rule-just-made-history https://essayx.substack.com/p/the-35-percent-rule-just-made-...
- dgellow 4mo agoProtesting one weekend day every 6 months will obviously do nothing. The pressure needs to be non stop
- intended 4mo agoI highly recommend the research done by Robert Faris, Hal Roberts, and Yochai Benkler. In a nutshell, you have an issue where part of the information economy/market is captured. To the point that agenda can get set by theories or podcasts that have little truck with reality. Any checks or reviews of the claims, simply do not get surfaced within that ecosystem. This creates a more efficient system for political messaging. You cannot have an effective democratic system when your consensus building mechanisms have been (intentionally) compromised and weakened.
- YeahThisIsMe 4mo agoThe people in power now are doing everything they can to make that as hard as possible by any means necessary. Good luck.
- patrick451 4mo agoNo, they are doing everything they can to ensure that only the people who are legally allowed to vote are the ones voting.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> they are doing everything they can to ensure that only the people who are legally allowed to vote are the ones voting Illegal voting is so rare that almost every time folks go looking for it they come up empty handed. Examples of voter suppression, on the other hand, are trivial to fine. (And both parties do it, particularly around primaries.) In my state, we’re trying to enact a citizenship-proof requirement which penalizes women who change their name on getting married and those who can’t afford a passport. In effect, a marriage and poll tax. Ironically, this will disenfranchise the MAGA voters who are themselves pushing for it, but I’m not really going to point that out aggressively. (That said, a legitimate fraction of American politics right now is in convincing the other side’s likely voters that elections are rigged, the oligarchs are in charge, why even bother calling your electeds or voting, eat an ice-cream sundae and talk to your AI girlfriend.)
- Jiro 4mo agoIllegal voting is "rare" because the system is set up so that it is in most cases impossible to detect.
- estearum 4mo agoCan you describe the specific chain of events required to create a fraudulent vote that is "impossible" to detect? Surely if you can confidently state the system not only is this way, but is purposely designed this way, you should have zero problem describing it exactly step by step. Extra credit if you can describe a method that can produce 10, 100, or 1000 votes.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo agoAnd civically engaging. Less than a fifth of voters regularly contact their electeds.
- sosomoxie 4mo agoDefinitely not, you may, at best, shift the problems to someone else. Both of "our" political parties are beyond redemption and cannot be reformed (if they were very not terrible in the first place). The only thing that will change outcomes is direct action and I'm including limitless scaling of that including the armed defense of your ideals.
- rayiner 4mo agoYes more people should vote: https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%20Research%20Retrospective.pdf https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2... (“Projecting onto the full voter file, if every registered voter voted, it’s likely that Trump would have won by even more.”).
- estearum 4mo agoYes, more people should vote. Always funny when Trumpers try to this out as a gotcha lmao. As a believer in democracy, I think it's better that our government is more responsive rather than less responsive to the public.
- rayiner 4mo agoHigh turnout brings out the low-information voters and changes the composition of the viable coalition for both parties. If we restricted the franchise, we might be able to sustain something closer to the Romney GOP versus the Mayor Pete Democratic Party. And that would make the government a lot more orderly and competent. I doubt the top 10-20% of either side wants a democracy. The difference is in where we want the filtering to happen. I want it to happen up front at the voting stage, but have the government be highly responsive to the people that do vote. The “Mayor Pete” neoliberal democrats favor mass voting, but that the actual governance is done by highly credentialed career bureaucrats that aren’t directly answerable to voters. I’d argue the Mayor Pete model is even less democratic than mine. Because although everyone votes, the effect of that vote is filtered through a fairly narrow class of credentialed bureaucrats, entry into which is gatekept by elite universities and professional organizations.
- fragmede 4mo agoI don't know who the > The “Mayor Pete” neoliberal democrats are, but yes, you want career bureaucrats running the show that follow the rules as set forth by Congress, with appointed officials that pass vetting at the top. Otherwise every position becomes political and the laws themselves go further out the window.
- vjulian 4mo agoMany of us find voting insulting, given very low marginal power in a vote; it’s akin to throwing breadcrumbs to the poor. The structure of governance (the reality, not the mythology taught in schools or pushed forth as propaganda) is not in support of ‘the people”. Right or wrong, this is how many of feel. Voting is silly and futile.
- vjulian 4mo agoCivics is a kind of religion, and it is difficult for people caught up in it to approach discussion from a logical and external perspective. This kind of civics is dangerous to society.
- Sabinus 4mo agoConversely, I think civics where anonymous people tell you voting isn't effective and promote a kind of resentful powerless nihilism is dangerous to society. Reform is preferable to revolution which is preferable to oppression.
- robotresearcher 4mo agoIronically, the way to change this is by voting. One election at a time, we can trend towards the better or worse.
- LocalH 4mo agoWe have to remove the power the current political duopoly has had for generations. Fuck the Republicans. Fuck the Democrats. Rally behind a third-party candidate and blow up the establishment with your vote
- donkey_brains 4mo agoHell yeah. And disregard anyone who says you’re “wasting your vote” or “splitting the vote”; they’re part of the problem and their defeatist thinking will get us nowhere.
- otikik 4mo agoMaking the wealthy scared
- esikich 4mo agoViolence. But people are still pretty comfortable so here we sit.
- dmboyd 4mo agoThe actual effective strategy is “tit for tat”
- jrflowers 4mo agoThe other party needs to run better candidates. It’s their job to drive voter turnout in their favor (not internet argument warriors) and they’ve lost two out of the last three elections by sabotaging their own primaries and doing “Our candidate isn’t good but at least they’re not a got dang cheeto!!” campaigns. “Less bad doesn’t have to mean good” is a mantra with a current 67% loss rate, soon to be 75%, and then 80% four years after that if they keep trying it. And they’ll keep blaming the voters that they failed every time.
- bobthepanda 4mo agoThere also needs to be, probably, more party diversity. The fact that the current president has such a stranglehold over their party is pretty unprecedented; normally, the big tent parties have lots of little camps with power bases that somewhat insulate independence, whether that be on an issue or regional level. It's kind of odd that the disenfranchised members of that party have not started up their own party. Also, I think the current gerrymandering race to the bottom has pretty clearly demonstrated the need for a better system of voting and district mapping. The House elections are already regulated by congressional act, not by the constitution.
- Sabinus 4mo agoRanked choice voting and the implementation of independent impartial redistricting are very urgently needed reforms.
- bobthepanda 4mo agoI think rather than redistricting in the narrow sense, we should consider * repealing the cap on house seats, which has been stuck at 435 arbitrarily * requiring that metropolitan areas consist of multimember districts that get allocated by proportional voting
- vitally3643 4mo ago[flagged]
- drnick1 4mo ago[flagged]
- bilbo0s 4mo agoI'm pretty sure they didn't think this through in a comprehensive fashion. Because making it esy to find all the rich people just seems like a very bad idea given the direction things are going. When it was broad, the only thing you could do was locate, say, large minority groups. Blacks and latinos for instance. And even that led to problems. I can't imagine what will happen when we can drill down and tease out immigrants from citizens. Gay from straight. Rich from well to do. And so on.
- giancarlostoro 4mo agoDo you really need the census to find people of specific demographics in 2026? Pretty sure I can go up to anyone in any state and ask where all the Puerto Ricans live and get an answer (in many cases I'm sure I'll get stared at like I'm crazy, but that's still an answer). I know because my parents moved to predominantly Hispanic parts of Florida before fully settling down where we landed, I REALLY doubt they stopped to pull up census data to decide where to find Hispanics / Puerto Ricans in Florida. You can talk to any local of any area and figure out which areas are a specific nationality without census data.
- joe_mamba 4mo ago[flagged]
- evilsmurf 4mo agoBit of a broad brush to be painting with.
- joe_mamba 4mo ago[flagged]
- peddling-brink 4mo agoGood thing that’s been the only act of political violence in America since 2024, otherwise there might be alternative viewpoints.
- joe_mamba 4mo agoSuch as?