3 ms·

Less than half of people who voted voted for Trump, and turnout was 64%. Being allowed to chose between two evils every few years isn't democracy.

krapp 2mo ago
That's been the system for over 200 years and Americans have never changed it, even though it only exists as it does to keep slaveowning states in the union and prevent a civil war (which it failed to do.) If it isn't democracy now, it's never been democracy.
jfengel 2mo ago
Democracy is only ever choosing between two evils. You will never agree entirely with either candidate. In order to reach a majority, you will have to reach some kind of compromise with people with goals you hate. As has been famously stated, democracy is the worst system, except for all of the others. I think people often underestimate just how bad it is.
- lesuorac 2mo ago
  You should never need to pick between just two candidates though. The need for any sort of alternative system to first-past-the-post should've been plainly obvious in the '00 election. The problem is the people that could change that were elected under a first-past-the-post system and don't want to lose their current advantage.
  - gs17 2mo ago
    Sadly, the biggest group pushing for an alternative is FairVote, who exclusively push RCV/IRV, which doesn't fix most of the issues of FPTP and introduces new ones. I'm bombarded by their ads, where they outright lie about its properties ("RCV ends the spoiler effect", "RCV means no more voting for the lesser evil").
    - gusgus01 2mo ago
      What doesn't RCV fix about FPTP? And what issues does it introduce? I've seen discussions around how it can be more confusing than the current system, and can reduce confidence in the election.
      - gs17 2mo ago
        It doesn't fix the spoiler effect (it makes its own version of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_squeeze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_squeeze ), and it removes monotonicity. The second one is a big deal for me, at least in FPTP a vote for a candidate always helps them. With RCV, a vote for a candidate can hurt them, and sometimes not voting makes the outcome you want more likely than if you did vote for it. The 2022 Alaska election was a great example of it failing: https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22/ https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22/ FairVote called that election a success because people managed to fill in their ballots, even if they didn't get the outcome they thought they were voting for.
        lesuorac 2mo ago
        Very interesting graphics. Definitely changed my mind over RCV vs STAR. Although I'll still support either if I had the opportunity.
- senordevnyc 2mo ago
  Democracy is only ever choosing between two evils. American democracy. Other democracies have multiple viable parties and candidates.
- doubtitt 2mo ago
  [flagged]
cmrdporcupine 2mo ago
Democracy is people's power and the people in the US (and frankly most of the western world) are refusing to exercise it. Democracy is not a legal framework but a cultural outlook that requires a sense of civitas. Which is mostly lost in the west (and in most other places, too) where deference to individual power has been allowed to become fully ascendant. We rightfully decry the state authoritarianism in places like China, but their current seemingly superior ability to accomplish broader community betterment goals seems less to do with their political structure and more to do with still having some sense and confidence and optimism that people can in fact work together. Meanwhile official small-l liberal ideology in North America fundamentally does not believe in this at all, and the ascendant far right is openly aggressive against this concept and an explicit "might makes right" ethos is becoming more and more triumphant and embodied in Trump. Trump will eventually die and rot but the Stephen Millers of the world will still snake around in the background looking for the next pseudo-strong man to stand up and smirk all over a compliant population that has lost its desire to work together and just wants to submit to the loudest asshole in the room. No constitution or election or political party saves the country from this. People's power does.
nozzlegear 2mo ago
Can't help but roll my eyes every time an election between a guy who campaigned on locking up his political enemies and throwing out all the Mexicans, and an awkward black woman, is described as choosing "between two evils." Give me a break.
- jfengel 2mo ago
  A lot of people cited Gaza as an example of "evil" by the last administration. I can have a small amount of sympathy for that. What was happening there was indeed harrowing. But only a small amount. It's one issue of many, and the other party was even more against Gaza. I'm hard pressed to see it as sincere to present that single issue as the only one that mattered, and overwhelmed all else.
triceratops 2mo ago
Unless Fred Rogers is a candidate it's always going to be a choice between two evils. Do your best. Sitting out is a half vote for the greater evil.

krapp 2mo ago

That's been the system for over 200 years and Americans have never changed it, even though it only exists as it does to keep slaveowning states in the union and prevent a civil war (which it failed to do.) If it isn't democracy now, it's never been democracy.

jfengel 2mo ago

Democracy is only ever choosing between two evils. You will never agree entirely with either candidate. In order to reach a majority, you will have to reach some kind of compromise with people with goals you hate. As has been famously stated, democracy is the worst system, except for all of the others. I think people often underestimate just how bad it is.

lesuorac 2mo ago
You should never need to pick between just two candidates though. The need for any sort of alternative system to first-past-the-post should've been plainly obvious in the '00 election. The problem is the people that could change that were elected under a first-past-the-post system and don't want to lose their current advantage.
- gs17 2mo ago
  Sadly, the biggest group pushing for an alternative is FairVote, who exclusively push RCV/IRV, which doesn't fix most of the issues of FPTP and introduces new ones. I'm bombarded by their ads, where they outright lie about its properties ("RCV ends the spoiler effect", "RCV means no more voting for the lesser evil").
  - gusgus01 2mo ago
    What doesn't RCV fix about FPTP? And what issues does it introduce? I've seen discussions around how it can be more confusing than the current system, and can reduce confidence in the election.
    - gs17 2mo ago
      It doesn't fix the spoiler effect (it makes its own version of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_squeeze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_squeeze ), and it removes monotonicity. The second one is a big deal for me, at least in FPTP a vote for a candidate always helps them. With RCV, a vote for a candidate can hurt them, and sometimes not voting makes the outcome you want more likely than if you did vote for it. The 2022 Alaska election was a great example of it failing: https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22/ https://realrcv.equal.vote/alaska22/ FairVote called that election a success because people managed to fill in their ballots, even if they didn't get the outcome they thought they were voting for.
      - lesuorac 2mo ago
        Very interesting graphics. Definitely changed my mind over RCV vs STAR. Although I'll still support either if I had the opportunity.
senordevnyc 2mo ago
Democracy is only ever choosing between two evils. American democracy. Other democracies have multiple viable parties and candidates.
doubtitt 2mo ago
[flagged]

cmrdporcupine 2mo ago

Democracy is people's power and the people in the US (and frankly most of the western world) are refusing to exercise it. Democracy is not a legal framework but a cultural outlook that requires a sense of civitas. Which is mostly lost in the west (and in most other places, too) where deference to individual power has been allowed to become fully ascendant. We rightfully decry the state authoritarianism in places like China, but their current seemingly superior ability to accomplish broader community betterment goals seems less to do with their political structure and more to do with still having some sense and confidence and optimism that people can in fact work together. Meanwhile official small-l liberal ideology in North America fundamentally does not believe in this at all, and the ascendant far right is openly aggressive against this concept and an explicit "might makes right" ethos is becoming more and more triumphant and embodied in Trump. Trump will eventually die and rot but the Stephen Millers of the world will still snake around in the background looking for the next pseudo-strong man to stand up and smirk all over a compliant population that has lost its desire to work together and just wants to submit to the loudest asshole in the room. No constitution or election or political party saves the country from this. People's power does.

nozzlegear 2mo ago

Can't help but roll my eyes every time an election between a guy who campaigned on locking up his political enemies and throwing out all the Mexicans, and an awkward black woman, is described as choosing "between two evils." Give me a break.

jfengel 2mo ago
A lot of people cited Gaza as an example of "evil" by the last administration. I can have a small amount of sympathy for that. What was happening there was indeed harrowing. But only a small amount. It's one issue of many, and the other party was even more against Gaza. I'm hard pressed to see it as sincere to present that single issue as the only one that mattered, and overwhelmed all else.

triceratops 2mo ago

Unless Fred Rogers is a candidate it's always going to be a choice between two evils. Do your best. Sitting out is a half vote for the greater evil.