sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
View 10 more replies »
Elessar · 26-30, M
@Soossie Both are stubborn, one for having indicated a successor and retired and one because, well.. stubbornness isn't even his worst trait.
That said, the problem with Sara's position (who's my friend and we pretty much agree on 99.999% of issues minus perhaps this only one) is that in a first-past-the-post system voting for a third candidate is essentially identical to sitting out the election: only the second option has a chance of winning over the first (whomever will be first and second choices will be known only in November), third options don't win anything, 'don't get to form coalitions, and essentially don't matter in the slightest once the election is over. Voting a third party in such a system is only meaningful if there's a chance that one specific third party could become the second or the first - which is not the case in 2024 America: third parties are many, there's not a clear dominant one, and even the most "popular" one (RFK?) has zero chances of toppling either democrats or republicans anywhere.
You can do so called protest vote in proportional democracies like Europe's (most of it anyway), where voting for a third party will essentially strengthen or weaken a specific party within the winning coalition, but not in FPTP, in which the concept of coalition doesn't exist.
For instance, let's say I don't really want party A to win, at the same time I'm not a big fan of B even if I believe that B would still be better than A. If the election I'm voting in used America's system I'd be forced to either vote for B or throw away my vote / let others decide for me. Instead, I can vote for C - that is also strongly opposed to A, not fans of B either, but that may agree to form a "B+C" coalition after the vote (with their percentages added together) just for the sake of opposing A (and compromising on eachother's differences). At the same time, also A would have to form a coalition (say, "A+D") in order to counter this alliance, and by doing so compromise with D and potentially renounce to some of their most radical policies.
This is not possible in America, where voting for C is exactly the same as not voting at all (=> letting A win in spite of having a low % of support within the eligible population, due to low turnout).
I absolutely understand and relate with Sara being pìss*d at this, but it's not by letting Trump win that you get this fixed, especially when Trump is the one benefiting the most from the current system, and openly advocating for making it even harder to have any options besides himself.
It's maybe possible to replace FPTP with something that gets them out of this two parties nightmare (ranked choice, for instance), but it'll require long term commitment, and definitely not allowing wannabe-authoritarians to win lazily and make changes even harder to pass.
That said, the problem with Sara's position (who's my friend and we pretty much agree on 99.999% of issues minus perhaps this only one) is that in a first-past-the-post system voting for a third candidate is essentially identical to sitting out the election: only the second option has a chance of winning over the first (whomever will be first and second choices will be known only in November), third options don't win anything, 'don't get to form coalitions, and essentially don't matter in the slightest once the election is over. Voting a third party in such a system is only meaningful if there's a chance that one specific third party could become the second or the first - which is not the case in 2024 America: third parties are many, there's not a clear dominant one, and even the most "popular" one (RFK?) has zero chances of toppling either democrats or republicans anywhere.
You can do so called protest vote in proportional democracies like Europe's (most of it anyway), where voting for a third party will essentially strengthen or weaken a specific party within the winning coalition, but not in FPTP, in which the concept of coalition doesn't exist.
For instance, let's say I don't really want party A to win, at the same time I'm not a big fan of B even if I believe that B would still be better than A. If the election I'm voting in used America's system I'd be forced to either vote for B or throw away my vote / let others decide for me. Instead, I can vote for C - that is also strongly opposed to A, not fans of B either, but that may agree to form a "B+C" coalition after the vote (with their percentages added together) just for the sake of opposing A (and compromising on eachother's differences). At the same time, also A would have to form a coalition (say, "A+D") in order to counter this alliance, and by doing so compromise with D and potentially renounce to some of their most radical policies.
This is not possible in America, where voting for C is exactly the same as not voting at all (=> letting A win in spite of having a low % of support within the eligible population, due to low turnout).
I absolutely understand and relate with Sara being pìss*d at this, but it's not by letting Trump win that you get this fixed, especially when Trump is the one benefiting the most from the current system, and openly advocating for making it even harder to have any options besides himself.
It's maybe possible to replace FPTP with something that gets them out of this two parties nightmare (ranked choice, for instance), but it'll require long term commitment, and definitely not allowing wannabe-authoritarians to win lazily and make changes even harder to pass.
black4white · 56-60, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
HumanEarth · F
JoyfulSilence · 46-50, M
Fortunately, the nation and its governments are far more resilient than the temporary political controllers of the executive branch.
First, periodic elections and term limits allow turnover, obviously. No hereditary monarchs or supreme leaders for life that the people at large never get to choose.
Next, federalism spreads control and duties across the nation. The city or county governments handle most crimes and local regulations, the states handle a lot, and things like schools. It makes for a confusing patchwork, but allows diversity, where people technically could move to a better place. Still, fairness and goodness should be universal. So the national government has a role, to standardize things.
Also, at the national government, power is split, as well, and each part has a say on the other parts. The executive nominates judges, the legislative approves, and then judges are independent. The legislative passes laws, but the executive must approve (unless the veto is overturned by the executive). The executive interprets implementation. The judicial judges both the laws and implementation. No decrees, no kings.
It is messy, and hard to do things. But this is by design. The only expediency is during an emergency, so we give such power to the executive. So it is scary when they are bad, crazy, or feeble. But they are surrounded by advisers. And moral people can still refuse to carry out orders. They are not robots. Still, ballistic missiles would obey. So scary.
First, periodic elections and term limits allow turnover, obviously. No hereditary monarchs or supreme leaders for life that the people at large never get to choose.
Next, federalism spreads control and duties across the nation. The city or county governments handle most crimes and local regulations, the states handle a lot, and things like schools. It makes for a confusing patchwork, but allows diversity, where people technically could move to a better place. Still, fairness and goodness should be universal. So the national government has a role, to standardize things.
Also, at the national government, power is split, as well, and each part has a say on the other parts. The executive nominates judges, the legislative approves, and then judges are independent. The legislative passes laws, but the executive must approve (unless the veto is overturned by the executive). The executive interprets implementation. The judicial judges both the laws and implementation. No decrees, no kings.
It is messy, and hard to do things. But this is by design. The only expediency is during an emergency, so we give such power to the executive. So it is scary when they are bad, crazy, or feeble. But they are surrounded by advisers. And moral people can still refuse to carry out orders. They are not robots. Still, ballistic missiles would obey. So scary.
@JoyfulSilence
You have one of the best governing system in your country … no one can have the absolute power without being held responsible for what they do and it’s consequences ….
Yet, a sharp middle age president could make really good decisions (with the help of his/her advisers) for the nation …
You have one of the best governing system in your country … no one can have the absolute power without being held responsible for what they do and it’s consequences ….
Yet, a sharp middle age president could make really good decisions (with the help of his/her advisers) for the nation …
Lilliesandlight · 41-45, F
carpediem · 61-69, M
@Soossie Not everyone feels that way. Many of us believe we have a candidate with a good plan and better policy. Despite what leftist media will have the world believe, not all conservative leaning people are evil. Sorry that so many can’t respect the beliefs of others. It wasn’t always this way.
And I agree that many people chose Biden for his party. Now they have to reconcile that vote with what they witnessed yesterday.
And I agree that many people chose Biden for his party. Now they have to reconcile that vote with what they witnessed yesterday.
BohemianBabe · M
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
Pfuzylogic · M
antonioioio · 70-79, M
Justmeraeagain · 56-60, F
@Justmeraeagain
They’re both picked by their own parties … they need insane puppets as their candidates ..
They’re both picked by their own parties … they need insane puppets as their candidates ..
@SW-User
60 is the best age … young enough to continue with tight busy schedule of a president, and mature enough to make good decisions …
60 is the best age … young enough to continue with tight busy schedule of a president, and mature enough to make good decisions …
Heartlander · 80-89, M
BittersweetPotato · 31-35, F
pearllederman · 61-69, F
chilloutab2 · 46-50, M
A sharp young man was running... but Americans rejected him. Apparently he wasn't the right skin colour or religion... and had thoughts and views that were too contrary to be accepted by the mob.
In a democracy you get the leaders you deserve... at the moment America does not seem very deserving.
In a democracy you get the leaders you deserve... at the moment America does not seem very deserving.
chilloutab2 · 46-50, M
@helenS The big political parties are comprised of a sizeable section of the people.
helenS · 36-40, F
@chilloutab2 I tried to find out the number of party members, but it's not easy...
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
BLP11520 · 61-69, M
@ShenaniganF00die once again guns are not the problem when I was a little kid people weren’t shooting up schools
BLP11520 · 61-69, M
Look up the bath School bombing in in Bath Michigan, where a man dynamited schools and killed about 44 people that was like 100 years ago
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ChipmunkErnie · 70-79, M
bhatjc · 46-50, M
@ChipmunkErnie heavy on the pain.
SW-User
What difference would it make? This emphasis on age is very naive and superficial
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
bookerdana · M
bookerdana · M
Docdon23 · M
they are both incompetent for different reasons--how sad they are our only choices
helenS · 36-40, F
@Reason10 Thank you – I'm not an American, so I can't comment on the merits of individual presidents specifically. Regarding Mr. Trump, I see his foreign policy as rather successful, but I consider it to be highly problematic that he was, and still is, unable to accept he was defeated in the 2020 elections. To me it means he sees himself as being above democracy.
When it's about the US economy, I simply don't know. From a European point of view, the American economy appears to be successful and stable.
When it's about the US economy, I simply don't know. From a European point of view, the American economy appears to be successful and stable.
GerOttman · 61-69, M
@Docdon23 You have hit on one of the biggest problems with our current system. These are >Not< our >>Only<< choices. There are other options on the ballot.
Two problems prevent any change in the system however.
First is the idea that a third party vote is somehow "wasted" or gives advantage to the opposite party. Third parties tend to draw equally from both major parties and will pretty much null each other out. As to wasting a vote, those are the millions of votes which stay home and refuse to take a stand. When I cast my vote for a third party, my vote counts!
Second, and most damaging, our media refuses to give any serious coverage or consideration to third party candidates. There exists a biased left wing aspect to one set of mass market media. They highlight any perceived accomplishment by their favored son and excoriate any perceived fault in the "evil" opposition. This bias is matched point for point by the right wing mass media. Neither will give an inch to the other, that's not "news" it's just propaganda...
People in the USA, by and large, believe what they are told to believe. The only coverage allotted to an third party candidate by either is if they say or do something "funny". It's not going to change either! Until and unless something happens to break the back of the two party system, expect more of the same for years and decades to come. Nothing happening in this election cycle is about helping the average working American, it is about wealthy elites accumulating and consolidating wealth and power unto themselves and keeping the masses (you and me mostly) entertained.
Are you not entertained?
Two problems prevent any change in the system however.
First is the idea that a third party vote is somehow "wasted" or gives advantage to the opposite party. Third parties tend to draw equally from both major parties and will pretty much null each other out. As to wasting a vote, those are the millions of votes which stay home and refuse to take a stand. When I cast my vote for a third party, my vote counts!
Second, and most damaging, our media refuses to give any serious coverage or consideration to third party candidates. There exists a biased left wing aspect to one set of mass market media. They highlight any perceived accomplishment by their favored son and excoriate any perceived fault in the "evil" opposition. This bias is matched point for point by the right wing mass media. Neither will give an inch to the other, that's not "news" it's just propaganda...
People in the USA, by and large, believe what they are told to believe. The only coverage allotted to an third party candidate by either is if they say or do something "funny". It's not going to change either! Until and unless something happens to break the back of the two party system, expect more of the same for years and decades to come. Nothing happening in this election cycle is about helping the average working American, it is about wealthy elites accumulating and consolidating wealth and power unto themselves and keeping the masses (you and me mostly) entertained.
Are you not entertained?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment