this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
773 points (98.6% liked)

politics

18863 readers
3890 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The only thing that can fracture the two party system is ranked choice or alternative voting systems. FPTP guarantees two parties.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The problem is that FPTP massively benefits democrats and republicans so they're unlikely to want to vote against it. So, to get it passed you'd need to get a third party in power that doesn't benefit from FPTP. But, you can't get a third party in power because FPTP makes it virtually impossible to elect third party candidates.

It's a catch-22 situation.

In Canada the Liberal party made an election promise that they would scrap FPTP if elected. They're one of two main parties in Canada, along with the Conservatives. Of course, as soon as they won the election, they backed out of that promise.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Wasn't Maine or some state experimenting with it?

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And I can't wait. I am firmly in support of ranked choice. I think it's absence is the root cause of a lot of issues and should be a single issue voter issue... second ONLY to the fact that there is a "candidate" in the running who is responsible for a Temu quality coup.

Again (not for you but others), I know the issues of my party. It's my party not my religion. I am uncomfortable with the compromises democrats make. The thing about coalition governments and multi-party systems is they allow compromises to happen while keeping support and acknowledging they are compromises in the name of pragmatism. It's the way it should be, it's how we get the best of all ideas.

There are things that should never be compromised. I'm a libertarian because Obama was in favor of "strong civil unions", renewed the patriot act, and kept Guantanamo open. In a coalition government, I maybe could have understood that, but that's the issue: without a coalition, and without ranked choice, those are now principles of the democratic party.

And again, it's all secondary to being able to vote at all in 2028. Harris is going to have a hell of a time, but I'm excited for it.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In the the absence of Ranked Choice, we likely would need to get involved at the Primary level in order to fundamentally change the party. Primary turnout rates are like 10% or something absurdly low.

[–] batmaniam@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Giddyup. In the meantime I'll vociferously vote for the folks who 1) aren't seditionist assholes who call my friends non humans 2) don't use passing point 1 to do other heinous shit. Voting in primaries is paramount, it makes people scared.

[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

that is not the correct analysis. the correct analysis is that strategic voting in a fptp system leads to party consolidation. the solution is values voting

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Oh you did it! You solved the spoiler effect! Let me know how that works for you.