You must log in or register to comment.
Looking to shut up those people complaining about both sides from the sidelines? Put them in the game by passing electoral reform in your state.
Since they seem to know it all, let them show us how it’s done by replacing First-past-the-post voting, passing equal access and airtime laws, and switching away from a perpetual election cycle to something shorter and more reasonable.
Get them to prove to us they know how to do things by making third parties viable and doing away with the infamous spoiler effect that is inherent with FPTP voting.
More people involved in the poltical process, more people voting, more people voting = more democratic votes, more chances to defeat the republicans, more people to call out bullshit on the debate stage, no more canceled debates because of giant man babies.
Electoral reform is just win after win for the American people. I know the election season has people exhausted, but things don’t have to be this way. We can be free.
For anyone who already knows the truth of this meme, or who would like to know more about the vast methods of deception and how to spot and counter them, this DEFCON 32 talk is incredible.
DEF CON 32 - Counter Deception: Defending Yourself in a World Full of Lies - Tom Cross, Greg Conti
The Internet was supposed to give us access to the world’s information, so that people, everywhere, would be able to know the truth. But that’s not how things worked out. Instead, we have a digital deception engine of global proportions. Nothing that comes through the screen can be trusted, and even the things that are technically true have been selected, massaged, and amplified in support of someone’s messaging strategy.
Deception isn’t just about narratives - we see deception at every layer of the network stack, from spoofed electromagnetic signatures, to false flags in malware, to phony personas used to access networks and spread influence. They hide in our blindspots, exploit our biases, and fill our egos while manipulating our perceptions.
How do we decide what is real? This talk examines time-tested maxims that teach the craft of effective deception, and then inverts those offensive principles to provide defensive strategies. We’ll explore ways to counter biases, triangulate information sources, detect narratives, and how hackers can build tools that can change the game.
Yup, they know they’re outnumbered so they try every trick in the book to stop the Democrat bloc surplus from voting.
I think both Dems and Republicans suck in very different and not proportionate ways, but I am also a very big proponent of voting. Go vote! It’s your duty.
I find that the thing people need to remember is that the general election is purely damage control time. For actual change, and getting candidates that don’t suck, the work needs to already be done by the time the election rolls around.
Right, the election is the Primary. In this case it was 2020 when I voted for Burnie. Biden won (and then handed over to Harris). That’s who was chosen, and I’m okay with that.
Politics is marketing. Governing is the slow boring of hard boards. You only get there with dilligence, conviction, and commitment to the idea that you are planting the trees that will shade your grandchildren.
This, except that the foundations that lead to change are laid on election night. Yes the cement was mixed and the scaffolding raised, but today sets the tools we have to work with to enact that change for the next 4 (or rarely 2) years.
The local candidates and party officials matter more than the final presidential vote. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote for President.
I’ve noticed liberals on Lemmy love voting until you mention it’s for a socialist that represents your values.
How Democratic of them.
If you want to organize and elect socialists at local levels of power who form coalitions with other left wing groups to coordinate against conservatives, I will help you do it.
If you do nothing but whine online and avoid politics to vote for a socialist candidate every 4 years during the presidential elections in a FPTP system, you’re a moron.
I’d say most people think a wasted vote in a contentious election with a racist, rapist, fascist who wants to end democracy is stupid.
If you were to say, I don’t know, be working with local parties at the town, city, and state level to grow them and get them into positions, making them viable for the presidency down the road - not stupid! Awesome, in fact.
Telling people vote for a 3rd party in this presidential election?
Stupid. Very, very stupid. Yes, it will be frowned upon. Because its stupid. And people should be telling you how stupid it is. Because it is.
In my experience, most people voting for 3rd parties care more for their own sense of morals than they do with actual outcomes. This election has not changed that in the slightest, and it’s even more open and obvious when the question of ‘ok, then what happens?’ comes up. I’ve been told by a supposed anti-genocide person that it’s ok if Palestinians get genocide harder because of the Democrats win they won’t pay attention to the progressives.
Like, how can you take someone seriously that is openly advocating for a path that makes their cause worse?
Huh? I’m for everyone voting. I just want everyone to vote.
If third parties wanted to actually do some good in the country, you’d see them running locally and encouraging either ranked-choice voting or STAR voting (Score, then automatic runoff).
The fact that you only ever hear of third parties every four years really illustrates what their true objectives are.
The fact that you only ever hear about ranked choice voting when you tell Democrat you’re thinking of voting third part illustrates what their true objectives are.
(Also, I see third candidate parties in every midterm and local election I vote in at all levels of government. I have no idea what you’re talking about).
(Also also, anyone reading this who lives in a swing state and hasn’t voted yet, please, just votes for Harris. She sucks, but Trump is even more dangerous now that he has a staff full of enablers and an actual plan. We have to beat him.)
Not having RCV doesn’t make anything worse.
Promoting third-parties without RCV in place does.
Well, third parties have always existed and will always exist, so it sounds like the Democrats need to get cracking on RCV. That is, unless they don’t actually want RCV because it might disrupt the duopoly that empowers them, and they’d prefer that third-parties remain a boogeyman they can use to bully people I to voting for them (or a scapegoat for their losses).
Third parties run at all levels of government and they would actually benefit from eliminating first past the post polling far more than the major parties.
Why is it called score, then automatic runoff instead of star, then automatic runoff?
Find your polling location. Go vote!
Your ballot will be deciding much more than just the president. Even if you did theoretically think both presidential canidates were equal in all regards (they aren’t), then vote for the down ballot races!
Keep your local school boards from having insane people on it that will ban books and harm your kids or your neighbors’s.
Vote for the constitutional ammendment questions and ballot initiatives. For instance, many states have either pro and anti abortion questions on their ballot.
100% this.
Republicans tell me the same thing.
They are technically correct in that a first past the post system will always reduce to a 2 party contest. The fact that conservatives are more consistent and reliable voters is where that distinction breaks down in reality. Non-voting and splitting the left wing coalition hurts the Democratic Party more.
voter suppression and voting are not the same thing.
a vote for third parties is as valid as a vote for a primary color.
That’s why a big portion of the funding for parties or candidates that pull from the political left in the US are extremely wealthy conservatives, right?
no, you are incorrect.
probably your vantage point.
it’s funny how confused you guys get from concise, direct answers.
Someone baselessly gainsaying something I’ve said isn’t confusing in the slightest. And what I said is really easy to verify or refute.
Though I was perhaps not specific enough when I said strictly “funding” as that can be interpreted as strictly the money a candidate gets in direct donations instead of including paying all the moving parts of a candidate’s run including PACs, et al. that cover legal fees and organization.
“…isn’t confusing in the slightest.”
of course, you’re one of those dizzy-headed people that think super clearly.
your comments are starting to make more sense.
“Though I was perhaps not specific enough…”
certainly.
“as that can be interpreted as strictly the money…”
still irrelevant to voting being valid regardless of the party you vote for, but have fun.
I like tangents.
Except when the votes literally aren’t counted.
that would be voter suppression.
which, yes, is the same thing as voter suppression.
＼(ﾟｰﾟ＼)
