Dividing the left wouldn’t matter if we used a more representative voting system. One that gave people the freedom to vote how they want and still have their vote count if their preference didn’t win. Voters should be able to transfer their vote how they wish and stay represented. To have their vote count no matter what.
Why don’t blue states switch away from First-past-the-post voting? Republicans aren’t in power, they could easily make this change. Don’t they believe in democracy? Or do prefer this undemocratic hostage situation that hands the republicans power repeatedly?
Alternative voting systems have in practice been proven useless, whether in South Korea, Japan, Australia, and many other capitalist dictatorship countries that use it. It might make bribery a bit more expensive, since there are more candidates to buy off, and more political advertising necessary, but it hasn’t fixed anything.
The root problem is capital standing above political power. And that can’t be undone using it’s own platform.
You’re right that it doesn’t solve much but the two party system in the US is particularly terrible. Fundamental change is a lot harder to achieve than changing voting systems and even with a socialist state we’d want one of these, so I think there’s no point opposing it even if it isn’t a panacea
Electoral reform not only doesn’t address root causes, it doesn’t even treat the symptoms. It hasn’t prevented australia or japan from having far right governments, hasn’t returned land to indigenous peoples, hasn’t done anything against inequality, hasn’t empowered poorer peoples. All it does is make the political bribery slightly more expensive.
At a deeper level, representative elections always result in an oligarchy. The wealthy / economically dominant classes are the only ones who have enough money / prestige to finance their campaigns and win the popularity contest. It makes any political system based on elections nothing more than political theatre.
This is basic stuff even the ancient greeks knew, and communists learned through trial and error, yet liberals in the 21st century can’t wrap their heads around it.
All it does is make the political bribery slightly more expensive.
I disagree, i think it makes it possible for 3rd parties to succeed, maybe not in practice, but at least theoretically, which is a worthwhile change. But let’s grant that that’s all it does… that’s still a good thing and not worth opposing.
At a deeper level, representative elections always result in an oligarchy. The wealthy / economically dominant classes are the only ones who have enough money / prestige to finance their campaigns and win the popularity contest. It makes any political system based on elections nothing more than political theatre.
Yup, I agree with all this, but i don’t see it as a reason to oppose better election systems.
I disagree, i think it makes it possible for 3rd parties to succeed, maybe not in practice, but at least theoretically, which is a worthwhile change.
Let me give you example i know, Poland. It have on the face value much better electoral system than USA nad lo and behold, 17 political parties and 49 independents got elected to sejm! But each and every single one of them is neoliberal and EU and or/US bootlicker, there was nobody else to choose except open nazis. Dessalines is completely right.
They’re useless because the capital powers that be actively try to misinform the public on preferential voting (As part of a larger attack on education to keep a complicit population)
If I had a dollar every time I heard someone tell me I’m throwing away my vote for preferencing a minor party that has no hope of winning I’d probably have enough money to bribe a politician into making some decent fucking policy
Dividing the left wouldn’t matter if we used a more representative voting system. One that gave people the freedom to vote how they want and still have their vote count if their preference didn’t win. Voters should be able to transfer their vote how they wish and stay represented. To have their vote count no matter what.
Why don’t blue states switch away from First-past-the-post voting? Republicans aren’t in power, they could easily make this change. Don’t they believe in democracy? Or do prefer this undemocratic hostage situation that hands the republicans power repeatedly?
Electoral Reform Videos
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems
STAR voting
Alternative vote
Ranked Choice voting
Range Voting
Single Transferable Vote
Mixed Member Proportional representation
It’s the second one. They all ultimately get paid by the same people, so that’s who’s interests they’re actually looking out for.
Alternative voting systems have in practice been proven useless, whether in South Korea, Japan, Australia, and many other capitalist dictatorship countries that use it. It might make bribery a bit more expensive, since there are more candidates to buy off, and more political advertising necessary, but it hasn’t fixed anything.
The root problem is capital standing above political power. And that can’t be undone using it’s own platform.
You’re right that it doesn’t solve much but the two party system in the US is particularly terrible. Fundamental change is a lot harder to achieve than changing voting systems and even with a socialist state we’d want one of these, so I think there’s no point opposing it even if it isn’t a panacea
Electoral reform not only doesn’t address root causes, it doesn’t even treat the symptoms. It hasn’t prevented australia or japan from having far right governments, hasn’t returned land to indigenous peoples, hasn’t done anything against inequality, hasn’t empowered poorer peoples. All it does is make the political bribery slightly more expensive.
At a deeper level, representative elections always result in an oligarchy. The wealthy / economically dominant classes are the only ones who have enough money / prestige to finance their campaigns and win the popularity contest. It makes any political system based on elections nothing more than political theatre.
This is basic stuff even the ancient greeks knew, and communists learned through trial and error, yet liberals in the 21st century can’t wrap their heads around it.
I disagree, i think it makes it possible for 3rd parties to succeed, maybe not in practice, but at least theoretically, which is a worthwhile change. But let’s grant that that’s all it does… that’s still a good thing and not worth opposing.
Yup, I agree with all this, but i don’t see it as a reason to oppose better election systems.
Let me give you example i know, Poland. It have on the face value much better electoral system than USA nad lo and behold, 17 political parties and 49 independents got elected to sejm! But each and every single one of them is neoliberal and EU and or/US bootlicker, there was nobody else to choose except open nazis. Dessalines is completely right.
That isn’t good evidence, we don’t have a large sample size and the culture can vary highly depending on the conditions at the start.
One country, even 10 countries, would not be a scientific study.
I think in the us it’d be possible to have a party that supports universal healthcare. Sure they’d still be libs but that would still massively help.
Better then more then half being fascists
They are all fascist, just not very scratched yet, but they all vote for supporting the neobanderites.
Lol the neobanderites huh, sounds like exactly what Russia would say, “odd.”
Preventing Russia from shamelessly land grabbing Ukraine isn’t “supporting neoanderites”
Agreed. Let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good. Even if it ONLY makes bribery more expensive, is that not a good thing?
They’re useless because the capital powers that be actively try to misinform the public on preferential voting (As part of a larger attack on education to keep a complicit population)
If I had a dollar every time I heard someone tell me I’m throwing away my vote for preferencing a minor party that has no hope of winning I’d probably have enough money to bribe a politician into making some decent fucking policy