|
It's starting to really look like we're going to have a white supremacy party and an everyone else party.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:For one thing, it's somewhat anomalous in modern democracies, and most of the rest of the world looks at the American system as a cautionary tale. Lol a lot of them were until they realized they had a whole bunch of legitimized nationalist authoritarians in their ranks taking over. Now I hope they spend more time looking inward instead of turning their nose up at a us. We're not about to collapse because 10% non-white population is threatening to become 11%
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:For one thing, it's somewhat anomalous in modern democracies, and most of the rest of the world looks at the American system as a cautionary tale. The European posters I've met also sneer at our absolutely 110% free speech and pretensions of secularism. America developed in strange and possibly frightening ways to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/783947655848361984 Look who stood up on their hind legs and barked! Yes! Ralph did!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This is perhaps an oversimplification, but major political shifts in the country have trended towards voter blocs shifting from one party to another, since parties under a two-party system are naturally going to be very big-tent. So in a sense, this is bound to happen anyway?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:The European posters I've met also sneer at our absolutely 110% free speech and pretensions of secularism. Ease up on the hot take game there, Goldwater. You're still riding the bench on this whole "thinking about politics" thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:So in a sense, this is bound to happen anyway? Change is inevitable, it's nailing down the specifics that's tough. It's entirely possible that the Libertarians join in with the Republicans and reform the party, booting the Nazis and Talmudic Law implementers out The reason I think this is less likely that the Democratic tent growing and splitting is twofold: 1) Libertarians are too stupid to live or function in wider society 2) the heads of the party are all silly valley tech weirdos nowadays, who will not give up the L and the Republican holdouts will not give up the R. Too much brand loyalty
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:IRV is still weak as hell in comparison to STV. Although I guess I can really only speak to STV within a parliamentary system. Oh, I like STV too. Heck, STV basically becomes IRV if you're only picking one candidate (like what a smaller state would do for a representative, or, you know, us picking a president). Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Instant-runoff voting is way too complicated. I can't imagine it being anything but a mess here. I don't see it as that complicated or hard to explain to people. "Put your top choice first, if they lose your vote goes to your second choice, etc. until someone get a majority of the vote. You can now vote third-party without basically voting against your own interests (but they probably still won't win so this mainly serves as a way to tell your preferred main party that you'd like them to start stealing ideas from the third parties you put ahead of them, at least for the presidency)." Epic High Five posted:it ain't perfect but everything else is worse Oh yeah, Britain's nonsense has me not liking a parliamentary system; things seem like an even worse mess there (though that's partially because they have FPTP too, at least for things like how a majority of their representatives have well under a majority of the vote). Currently I think the way to go would be STV so that gerrymandering is significantly weakened and our representatives are generally more, well, representative, and third parties aren't entirely useless and the main two have to react more to what voters want, but general things stay the same instead of us going for, like, a completely new system of government or something. Anyway, hm. Potential wedge issues... Well, with majority popular support for things like gay marriage, trans people using the restrooms they want, and women having access to abortions, I assume those at least wouldn't be the ones, thankfully. Not sure entirely what would be, though; like you say, it's really tough to tell. Things moving leftward overall would be really nice, though. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Lol a lot of them were until they realized they had a whole bunch of legitimized nationalist authoritarians in their ranks taking over. Now I hope they spend more time looking inward instead of turning their nose up at a us. We're not about to collapse because 10% non-white population is threatening to become 11% Let's be honest though, we walked up real real close to that ledge and dangled our toes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:The European posters I've met also sneer at our absolutely 110% free speech and pretensions of secularism. you actually have no idea what you're talking about. how is everything you say so amazingly wrong all the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Let's be honest though, we walked up real real close to that ledge and dangled our toes. We did, but we're passing a test a lot of countries are failing, and the annoying bit is that a lot don't even realize it's a test. Gonna be funny watching the US hopefully lurch leftward with a liberal SCOTUS and senate while Scandinavia keeps stripping down their socialist programs for reasons that totally aren't anything to do with brown people using them now In a lot of ways we actually did, we just did it 36 years ago and not yesterday
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:I don't see it as that complicated or hard to explain to people. "Put your top choice first, if they lose your vote goes to your second choice, etc. until someone get a majority of the vote. You can now vote third-party without basically voting against your own interests (but they probably still won't win so this mainly serves as a way to tell your preferred main party that you'd like them to start stealing ideas from the third parties you put ahead of them)." Yeah that's way too complicated. You have to remember, hardly anyone is a politics nerd like we are. Most people barely have a first choice for any given election. The overwhelming majority of Americans are straight-ticket voters who frequently know nothing about any candidate on the ballot below VP. I don't go in for that "lol the average person is so dumb" thing. It's not about intelligence, it's about this not being their hobby the way it is ours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:We did, but we're passing a test a lot of countries are failing, and the annoying bit is that a lot don't even realize it's a test. This hot take of yours is focusing an awful lot on your executive and carefully ignoring your house of representatives
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
quote:Anyway, hm. Potential wedge issues... Well, with majority popular support for things like gay marriage, trans people using the restrooms they want, and women having access to abortions, I assume those at least wouldn't be the ones, thankfully. Not sure entirely what would be, though; like you say, it's really tough to tell. Things moving leftward overall would be really nice, though. Abortion isn't going away any time soon. It's still much too easy to convince people of the frail logic of the pro-life movement and that being pro-life necessarily means being anti-legal abortion or birth control. The easy scare tactics of "your daughters!" and "those sluts" are too powerful. Also guns. Guns will be the death of the republic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:This hot take of yours is focusing an awful lot on your executive and carefully ignoring your house of representatives my hot take correctly assumes that a lot of progress can be made and damage undone with 2.5 branches of the government instead of 3.0
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
botany posted:you actually have no idea what you're talking about. how is everything you say so amazingly wrong all the time. Because I post on another forum where there were literally hundreds of posts with European posters saying hate speech should be illegal and American posters saying it shouldn't be. There was also how some people were making GBS threads on some of France's recent policies and a French ambassador explained how Frenchpeople see secularism very differently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:So in a sense, this is bound to happen anyway? I personally think that the demise of the GOP is a lot farther than we'd like to think. We still expect a wave election in 2018, and that whole mid-term election along with gerrymandering will allow the GOP to retain quite a bit of power in the House and State legislatures and governors. The big question (among others, to be fair) is how the base will react to the realization that the Presidency is effectively locked away from them for another 8 years and possibly even longer, and what that reaction will do to the party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Abortion isn't going away any time soon. It's still much too easy to convince people of the frail logic of the pro-life movement and that being pro-life necessarily means being anti-legal abortion or birth control. The easy scare tactics of "your daughters!" and "those sluts" are too powerful. For years now the trend has been fewer and fewer people owning more and more guns. Soon there will be so few that the gun lobbies will be starved. It will not be anytime soon tho, but it's not going to be the death of the Republic because frankly the Dems aren't willing to sunder the government over it, and that's a good thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yeah that's way too complicated. You have to remember, hardly anyone is a politics nerd like we are. Most people barely have a first choice for any given election. The overwhelming majority of Americans are straight-ticket voters who frequently know nothing about any candidate on the ballot below VP. I don't go in for that "lol the average person is so dumb" thing. It's not about intelligence, it's about this not being their hobby the way it is ours. Remove my parenthetical there, really, that was more for us political nerds and to show that I'm not delusional about IRV magically making a third-party take the presidency or something. "Rank your choices from best to worst and your vote goes to the first, person with the least votes is eliminated and their votes redistributed to next choices until someone has more than half the votes" is simple. Heck, I've talked about this with people who aren't political nerds (my family, who are varying degrees of conservative and racist and are mostly, admittedly, not exactly well-educated or anything) and they not only understand it but think it's a good idea. Heck, I was able to sell them on STV without much trouble. I think you're underestimating people a lot. Lightning Knight posted:Abortion isn't going away any time soon. It's still much too easy to convince people of the frail logic of the pro-life movement and that being pro-life necessarily means being anti-legal abortion or birth control. The easy scare tactics of "your daughters!" and "those sluts" are too powerful. Nah, again, abortion has >50% support in the country overall and stuff. The issue is the religious right having inordinate influence among Republicans, and both that influence and that party are dying. Guns might be a bigger issue, but, again, popular support is actually behind certain control. The NRA, awful organization that they are, will fight like mad, but if the Republican party dies hopefully the NRA's power will be diminished too since their pet politicians won't hold so much power. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Abortion isn't going away any time soon. It's still much too easy to convince people of the frail logic of the pro-life movement and that being pro-life necessarily means being anti-legal abortion or birth control. The easy scare tactics of "your daughters!" and "those sluts" are too powerful. Abortion actually is kinda fading, as hard as it is to tell. A lot of conservatives are losing steam on the entrenched battles - gay marriage is another one. For all their big talk, once the supreme court has weighed in on something it's pretty difficult to shift.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:
Working as intended
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I personally think that the demise of the GOP is a lot farther than we'd like to think. We still expect a wave election in 2018, and that whole mid-term election along with gerrymandering will allow the GOP to retain quite a bit of power in the House and State legislatures and governors. What can be hotter than a Shrieking White-Hot Sphere of Pure Rage though? Maybe one made of diamonds?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Remove my parenthetical there, really, that was more for us political nerds and to show that I'm not delusional about IRV magically making a third-party take the presidency or something. I live in California, which has more elements of direct democracy than most parts of the country, so our ballots already require a burdensome amount of voter education. I've been in the trenches there and just getting people to wrap their heads around what voting "Yes" on Proposition No More Badthing means is a struggle. People aren't dumb but people are distracted and they are creatures of habit. Even tiny increases in complexity can cause huge drops in participation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:my hot take correctly assumes that a lot of progress can be made and damage undone with 2.5 branches of the government instead of 3.0 Epic High Five posted:it ain't perfect but everything else is worse I personally wouldn't describe a system of government that almost literally can't pass laws, or write a budget, as better than everything else. I especially wouldn't do that when it's vulnerable to the same problems as the system you're comparing it to, cf steve king. e: i'm not claiming it's much worse, either. Just that your moral high ground is looking a little like a swamp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:For years now the trend has been fewer and fewer people owning more and more guns. Soon there will be so few that the gun lobbies will be starved. It will not be anytime soon tho, but it's not going to be the death of the Republic because frankly the Dems aren't willing to sunder the government over it, and that's a good thing When I said "the death of the republic," I was mostly kidding. More accurately, I just feel that gun control is one of the dumber hills Democrats rush to die on and that we could work around the issue to contain the damage without trying to meet the gun lobby head on. They're too powerful and liberals care too little about the issue for it to be a winning one for the party in the current climate. Edit: I don't think Republicans will or can win on abortion. I'm just saying it will remain a consistent wedge issue they can use to drive turnout for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2016/09/13/what-sjw-really-means/ This “SJW” business doesn’t involve an argument contrasting opposing views of the nature and meaning of social justice. It doesn’t involve some ideological dispute between competing visions of the proper role of the state, or of law, or markets, civil society, neighborliness, etc. It’s a wholesale rejection of the idea that social justice — in any form — is worthwhile. There’s something Hobbesian at work here — a vision of human society as an oxymoron, as merely an ongoing “war of all against all.” Musical chairs and dog-eat-dog and every man for himself. To believe otherwise — to imagine that some form of social justice, fairness, or liberty and justice for all might be possible and desirable — makes you a fool in their eyes. And fools are losers. That’s how a world without any standard of justice works. There’s no just and unjust, no good and bad, no better and worse — only winners and losers. The potentially confusing thing is that these folks get upset — very, very upset — whenever anyone else criticizes them for being racist or misogynist. They recoil from such language as though struck by a blow, deeply offended and furiously indignant. I initially saw this as a hopeful sign. To reject an appellation, after all, usually implies that one accepts and acknowledges its meaning. To reject a pejorative judgment usually means that one agrees that such a judgment is, in fact, pejorative. Thus I interpreted it as hopeful that these folks were offended when others described them as racist. Yes, it was ironic and mordantly comical that their anger at being described as “racist” often provoked them to strike back by spouting a string of ethnic slurs, but I mistakenly believed that this anger was still — on some semi-conscious level — a concession to a shared moral framework that regards racism as a Bad Thing and an injustice. That may be a teensy-weensy mustard seed of a starting point, but it would be something we could work with. Ah, OK, see? We agree that racism is bad. We agree that injustice is bad. … The road from there may be a long one, but the path is discernible. But any attempt to agree upon even such a subterranean lowest-common belief gets nowhere. If you ask these folks to set aside everything else, reassure them a thousand times over that you’re not attributing anything to them personally, and attempt to find common ground around even such basic propositions as “racism is bad” or “justice is preferable to injustice,” they will only become ever more infuriated, indignant and offended. Can’t we at least agree that “racism is bad”? No. No we cannot because, in their view — as far as I am able to discern it in their less-than-articulate, incoherent and spectacularly profane responses — this question is some kind of trick. To agree to even such a basic proposition, they believe, would be to give words and ideas a power that might then be used against them. The question thus provokes a kind of fight-or-flight defensiveness — a raising of hackles and baring of claws. It’s some kind of trap with a hidden barb or a pit beneath palm fronds and they refuse to be taken in. And so they will do or say almost anything to avoid answering that question. Very often, this involves deflecting by attempting to change the subject to Robert Byrd (someone we’ll discuss more later). Unfortunately for them, this response only reaffirms an implicit shared moral consensus — that being a member of the Klan and then filibustering the Civil Rights Act is a source of lasting and appropriate shame, even for one who later apologized and renounced those views. That only goes to prove true the very thing they’re desperately attempting to avoid affirming — that racism is a Bad Thing. But yet still they won’t say that, wary of the trick or the trap they’re sure some SJW is setting for them. And they’re not entirely wrong about that. It is a trap of a sort — although there’s nothing devious or sneaky about it. Even just this tiny concession — “racism is bad” or “justice is preferable to injustice” — would, in fact, grant power to ideas and morals that would, in turn, compel them to change. It would mean accepting the reality of some standard, of some good other than “winning.” I’m not saying, “They can’t admit racism is bad because they’re racist.” The problem is more that they can’t admit that justice is meaningful because to acknowledge the meaning of justice is always to be judged. And that, above all, is what they can’t stand. That is what infuriates them and offends them — the prospect of being judged, being assessed according to any standard not in their immediate control. This is reflected in their tendency to make any form of award or public recognition — Hugos or Oscars or box office sales or elections — a focal point of their spite. And it’s why their epithet of choice — “SJW” — is not just an insult directed at others with whom they disagree, but a rejection of any standard by which such disagreements might be adjudicated. I don’t think it overstates the case to say that’s what’s at stake in an election involving Donald Trump. He’s the preferred candidate for the anti-SJW crowd, but it’s not simply because he promises to make all the little SJW losers cry. It’s because he promises to dismiss whatever power any ideal of justice may have to adjudicate or evaluate our life together. In normal elections, two parties with competing ideologies meet to debate which of their approaches would bring us closer to a just society. Trump, like his Pepe-icon gamer-gater fans, rejects the terms of that argument. Your idea is more just? Who cares? Justice is silly and stupid, and that’s not how we’re keeping score. It’s not about justice anymore, it’s about “winning.” If social justice is a meaningless pipe dream, then it’s impossible to say what a utopia of “winning” would look like. But from what we’ve seen of the gamer-gaters and the anti-SJW mobs online, it won’t be pretty. Lightning Knight posted:Abortion isn't going away any time soon. It's still much too easy to convince people of the frail logic of the pro-life movement and that being pro-life necessarily means being anti-legal abortion or birth control. The easy scare tactics of "your daughters!" and "those sluts" are too powerful. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Abortion actually is kinda fading, as hard as it is to tell. A lot of conservatives are losing steam on the entrenched battles - gay marriage is another one. For all their big talk, once the supreme court has weighed in on something it's pretty difficult to shift.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:NikkolasKing you do get that this election will have actual, real consequences beyond the specific aesthetic typology of the suit who sits in the big chair for the TV cameras, right? Like, I'm sorry to be flippant, but your posting really doesn't indicate that this possibility has really breached your reality sphere other than "my gay friends might be more uncomfortable somehow (???)." It's amazing that Chertoff has endorsed Clinton, he was the lead Republican counsel on the Senate Whitewater Committee.That's how bad Trump is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
USPOL: I initially saw this as a hopeful sign
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:I personally wouldn't describe a system of government that almost literally can't pass laws, or write a budget, as better than everything else. I especially wouldn't do that when it's vulnerable to the same problems as the system you're comparing it to, cf steve king. all politics is swamp, that's why they built DC on one the problem isn't our system, it's the insane polarization we have in the country right now. Pretty much any other system you can name would also be popping rivets and wheezing under the strain of it. pretty much the only good thing to be said is that at least FPTP means that the polarization can be swept out or otherwise marginalized a lot faster than if there was no obligation for parties to be appealing or viable on the national level before they were handed power
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yeah that's way too complicated. You have to remember, hardly anyone is a politics nerd like we are. Most people barely have a first choice for any given election. The overwhelming majority of Americans are straight-ticket voters who frequently know nothing about any candidate on the ballot below VP. I don't go in for that "lol the average person is so dumb" thing. It's not about intelligence, it's about this not being their hobby the way it is ours. This system works fine in basically every country that uses it, though? It's really easy to understand after one or two elections? Epic High Five posted:it ain't perfect but everything else is worse I think it's quite funny that US people believe that a system in which *maybe* a really far right party might get a single seat in parliament on the back of 3% of the party vote in a proportional rep system is worse than a system in which one of the major party nominees for head of state is chosen by a tiny number of insane racists, and can then spend a year legitimising the most abhorrent positions imaginable on the national stage, before 40% of the country votes for them anyway because they've got an R next to their name. El Pollo Blanco fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:all politics is swamp, that's why they built DC on one To add to this, most parliamentary systems we compare to are majority one ethnicity with relatively little diversity. American polarization is fundamentally a function of American ethnic diversity. The Republican Party are literally the temper tantrum of a demographic in decline made flesh, while the Democrats have increasingly come to represent all the various ethnic and sexual/gender minorities who are rising to replace them. Most other countries don't have to prop up that kind of demographic strain. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/783947655848361984 Ah, good oll Ralph. Still trying to ratfuck the US into electoral disaster with his mouth even after all these years  Go do something productive like yell at Elon Musk to install seatbelts in his Mars rocket or whatever, you old coot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:That's not true at all. I find the revenge motive much more compelling. Saddam did try to wack W.'s daddy. A very understandable, human reason; just not a good one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:To add to this, most parliamentary systems we compare to are majority one ethnicity with relatively little diversity. American polarization is fundamentally a function of American ethnic diversity. The Republican Party are literally the temper tantrum of a demographic in decline made flesh, while the Democrats have increasingly come to repent all the various ethnic and sexual/gender minorities who are rising to replace them. Most other countries don't have to prop up that kind of demographic strain. Not yet at least, it'll be interesting to watch places like Sweden deal with becoming less and less lily white in the near future America is just straight up diverse as hell, and we've got a lot of issues with race and a lot of issues with tamping down white supremacy at the moment, but I'm at least confident that they're being dealt with and (provided Trump loses) aren't going to be shuffled back into the background and ignored again
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I live in California, which has more elements of direct democracy than most parts of the country, so our ballots already require a burdensome amount of voter education. I've been in the trenches there and just getting people to wrap their heads around what voting "Yes" on Proposition No More Badthing means is a struggle. People aren't dumb but people are distracted and they are creatures of habit. Even tiny increases in complexity can cause huge drops in participation. Huh, what part of California are you in, out of curiosity? I'm in the Valley but I will also admit that my political involvement has been minor at best. I still don't think that comparing our propositions to ranked choice voting works that well, particularly since the latter you can still vote for only one candidate if you really want to so for anyone who doesn't want to nothing changes, but, well, I don't think we're really going to convince each other here. I mean, I managed to explain IRV to both great grandparents and literal children and have them all get it, so I really don't see how it'd mess things up that badly. Epic High Five posted:all politics is swamp, that's why they built DC on one Yeah, that's one good thing. The Republicans are going to be slowly suffocated and denied any hopes of the presidency, even if their hold elsewhere will take longer to remove. Still, STV or something would have helped deal with the absurd gerrymandering somewhat, which seems like it'd have helped deal with this kind of stuff sooner. In theory, at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yeah that's way too complicated. You have to remember, hardly anyone is a politics nerd like we are. Most people barely have a first choice for any given election. The overwhelming majority of Americans are straight-ticket voters who frequently know nothing about any candidate on the ballot below VP. I don't go in for that "lol the average person is so dumb" thing. It's not about intelligence, it's about this not being their hobby the way it is ours. If Australian voters can cope with it, it can't be too complicated for Americans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Yeah I think we have an extra safety buffer in that our diversity is diverse. It's not just one minority group all the whites can rally together and oppose. Sure, some people are across-the-board racists, like Barry Goldwater, but you can see even Trump struggling to keep all the balls in the air reminding everybody to hate Mexicans and Muslims and Black People and Rosie O'Donnell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:If Australian voters can cope with it, it can't be too complicated for Americans. America is several times the size, with a failing education system (to help people be politically aware) and a Byzantine political system designed to keep the power to regulate things like elections in the hands of the States, who are broadly conservative. Trying to modify the American electoral system is a nightmare, and getting people to engage with it under a torrent of "politics is boring/unimportant, wah" bullshit and structural problems is even harder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 10:09
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Huh, what part of California are you in, out of curiosity? I'm in the Valley but I will also admit that my political involvement has been minor at best. And yeah, we don't need to convince each other. I'm not like, mad at IRV. If it happens I'll deal. I just think it'll cause a lot of static for very little gain. Angry Salami posted:If Australian voters can cope with it, it can't be too complicated for Americans. Yeah but you guys have mandatory voting and a parliamentary system, so it's a completely different deal entirely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
I'd argue that a voting system that was actually representative might result in far better outcomes for voter engagement than "oh poo poo I live in a place with FPTP and no chance of anyone I could support ever being elected, might as well stay home", even without mandatory voting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 10:13
|
|