Qualifications considered by those funding her campaign:
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
0 points (50.0% liked)
Political Memes
5359 readers
97 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Various political parties could compete to displace the Republicans with more representative electoral systems. voters could choose their preferred candidates while still counting their votes against the Republican party, even if their choice doesn't win, all without the spoiler effect. Since voting methods are determined at the state level, federal reforms aren't necessary; some states have already implemented changes. For example, Alaska recently opted for a more moderate conservative over Sarah Palin thanks to ranked-choice voting.
Who would oppose multiple opportunities to weaken Republican influence? The Democratic Party. In blue states, they could replace the First Past The Post system with one that eliminates the spoiler effect. Yet, time and again, Democrats remain inactive on passing state-level electoral reforms in the states they control.
Meanwhile, Republicans are working to safeguard FPTP voting in red states. Why do Democrats continue to use a system favored by Republicans? Why arent they searching for an alternative to FPTP voting? It's not that Democrats are unaware of the flaws in the voting system. Mentioning a third-party candidate to any Democrat will quickly reveal their in depth understanding of these mathematical flaws in the voting system. particularly concerning the Green Party apparently.
If Democrats understand the problem with the voting system, but refuse to address it, it suggests they prefer a tenuous balance over a potential rise of authoritarianism rather than genuinely competing for our votes. They seem more willing to allow the country to drift toward authoritarianism than to engage on an even playing field.
It appears to be party over country, regardless of the consequences.
I swear I've seen this same thing, word for word, by a different username.
Embraced by Dick Cheney.
Tough on the border
Pro-Police
Wants the most lethal fighting force in the world
Committed to Israel. (Genocide)
Wants a Republican in their cabinet
You don't have the Republicans as much as you pretend you do. I'll be voting third party. I don't support Republicans, including ones with (D) next to their name.
She's a known Russian asset and a vaccine denier. I wouldn't vote for her even if she had a chance at winning.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Yes, wants the most lethal fighting force in the world...attacking Ukraine into submission. She would do her best to get this done as president.
Embraced by Putin.
Has no track record.
Pro-whatever fills the coffers.
Doesn't want to do anything between presidential elections.
You're defending a non entity.
You conservatives aren't allies. I don't care and I will be unapologetically voting third party. Trump is winning my state for free. Your genocidal cop has no chance here. So I would be wasting my vote if I did support her and she doesn't plan on changing on her positions unless it is to court right-wingers.😀
What about those named "Jill Stein"
Pretty much
lame
Fill in the blanks then.
They must still be typing, because so far they haven't responded.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Times like ðis ðat I really appreciate ð opportunity to prune ð latest ban/block dodging propaganda account weeds from my front page.
Oh don't worry. Everyone that's seen whatever it is you typed has blocked you.
Block me
what the fuck is that symbol
it's the International phonetic alphabet for the sound "th" in "the", "this", " there", "though"... my question is why the fuck is he using it?
It's in ð IPA but it's root is as an old germanic letter for ð sound, including in English.
As for ð why, I þink ð latin alphabet is maladapted for ð English language as it is currently spoken, and ðat older letters should be written back in.
I mean really I þink ð whole of English spelling should be orþographized, but outside of a chat where I know people are going to be able to read and understand a reformed spelling system, just using ð and þ where I'd speak the according sounds suffices for me :þ
If the US had a single transferable vote system then you could comfortably vote for a third party, if you wanted to, without helping out the opponent you dislike the most.
You just rank the candidates, so you could rank Jill Stein as 1 if you want, then Harris as 2, and Trump below that. So then if Stein has fewer votes than Harris and Trump each have (likely) then her votes would transfer to whoever her voters ranked 2nd.
Under this system, a third party candidate is more likely to win (maybe you don't like Jill Stein, but conceivably a third party could produce a good candidate). The ballot under this system looks like this:
Cause popular vote is such a bad idea? This is just as flawed as the electoral college.
The ballot example is bad, but I definitely think this is an improvement on the current system.
As with every system; someone will eventually find flaws and then it'll need updated. Which is how democratic countries should work.
If someone tells you the system is good enough already, you can guarantee they benefit from some inequality.
We've already found the flaws in RCV and STV.
Ranked Choice has some serious flaws.
The first and strangest is the monotonicity criterion.
Ranked Choice is the only system that fails it. What it means is that you can actually improve a candidate's chance of winning by lowering their ranking on your ballot.
Oh yeah, it also still has the spoiler effect, where a third party can fuck over an election. It's just slightly harder to achieve. But the mechanism that forces two parties remains.
It's also hard to count and thus more susceptible to malicious actors.
Some of us have been screaming about these flaws for years.
There are better options. Approval is one. It's dead simple. The ballot instructions are as such. Do you approve of the candidate, mark yes or no next to any, all or none of the candidates listed.
Candidates with the highest approval win.
Approval is immune to the Spoiler effect. It would be a direct improvement vs anything being done in the world today.
And it's still not the best system out there.
That's likely to be STAR.
Immune to the Spoiler effect and also protected vs clone candidates and such, while allowing the voter to show clear preferences.
It also is constructed in such a way that it gets around some of those "one person one vote" laws put in place by the anti-voting reform people.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Arizona Prop 140 is trying to implement this exact system. I hope it passes.
And Colorado proposition 131
load more comments
(1 replies)