Why Can’t America Have a Sharp Young President??
Honestly, this is looking bad …
They are now debating over which one looks prettier ….
They are now debating over which one looks prettier ….
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Elessar · 26-30, M
@sarabee1995 Problem is, with the system you have in place that's exactly identical to not voting at all.
And per Trump's own statements and program (Project 2025), if he wins - because Republicans will vote compactly for him no matter what - it may as well the very last time you have a chance to vote.
It looks pretty bad to me from this side of the ocean tbh
And per Trump's own statements and program (Project 2025), if he wins - because Republicans will vote compactly for him no matter what - it may as well the very last time you have a chance to vote.
It looks pretty bad to me from this side of the ocean tbh
DunningKruger · 61-69, M
@sarabee1995 So, you're just voting for Trump, then?
Elessar · 26-30, M
@Soossie Unfortunately that's the practical reality.
10% of a country can democratically pick a winner if the remaining 90% sits out the election. Trump's supporters are hardcore, they're quasi 50%, he could kill someone while being on live TV and not lose a single vote, he said it himself.
10% of a country can democratically pick a winner if the remaining 90% sits out the election. Trump's supporters are hardcore, they're quasi 50%, he could kill someone while being on live TV and not lose a single vote, he said it himself.
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.