this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
309 points (97.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43889 readers
922 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sorry to be honest, but this is my view...
Voting between two parties, and then getting whatever the "electors" pick. All the while, thinking they live under the biggest democracy of the world.
Having all sorts of inhuman behaviors, like robbing childs from immigrants.
Child marriage.
Having lots of weapons in the country but all wars outside.
Mmm.. What else? Ah, prisoners are slaves.
I would burn the entirety of Ohio down in order to have more parties, I hate voting for the lesser of two evils, I've been doing it my whole life. Hardly feels like a democracy.
You know Donald Trump lost the 2016 popular vote, and George Bush lost the 2000 popular vote? ~~The last republican president to win the popular vote was George HW Bush in 1989 lol~~. Bush won reelection in 2004, my bad.
I'd go into the rest of the points, but you get it. It's a country for the rich
If we can't get rid of the electoral college entirely, electors should at least be proportional. For example, if Kamala Harris gets 25% of a state's votes and Trump gets 74%, then Harris should get 25% of the electors from that state (instead of zero).
George W Bush won the popular vote in 2004
You are very right, my bad. To be totally fair, by .7%. I'll edit!
Yah believe me if you had 6 or 8 you will still be voting for the lesser of two evils and you will spend your days trying to understand the differences...
Why do you say that?
We have a lot here in Italy and it's still a hard choice
Plenty of Americans find those things "weird". Myself, for instance.
It's hard to ~~effect~~ ~~affect~~ effect (why, English, why ๐ญ) change with just the two corrupt parties, with one being center-right and the other being far-right, and a voting system that keeps it that way. At least ranked-choice voting for some elections (reducing the pressure maintaining the two-party system) is up for a vote in my state soon.
Edit: affect (v.)/effect (n.)
I never do random drive by grammar replies, but since you put it in your edit: affect is a verb and effect is a noun usually but the way you used it needs the verb form of effect, meaning "to bring something into being/existence". So essentially you're saying it's difficult to create change in the two parties.
Note that affect can also be a noun (and is pronounced differently than the verb, with the emphasis on the first syllable), referring to someone's demeanor. You normally see it when talking about psychology.
Well, thank you, I learned something today! Damn you, English! shakes fist (the language, not the Amish term for non-Amish people)
Lots of things about US democracy are vaporware. The two-party paradigm and candidate selection in particular are a joke. Repubs various state party orgs eliminated any real primary challenge to Trump. Democrats spiked any meaningful primary challenges to Biden and then installed a replacement who received zero primary votes.
Then we get to "choose" between these arbitrary figures who were selected by elites and nobody really likes.