this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
1206 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4363 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
 

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) went after former President Trump for his legal woes in an interview on MSNBC Saturday.

“I’ll take the individual who’s 81 over the guy who has 91 felony counts,” Swalwell said, making a reference to President Biden’s age in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Katie Phang Show” on Saturday.

“It’s not about two individuals,” Swalwell continued, speaking about the 2024 election. “It’s about the idea of competence versus chaos, or even greater, freedom versus fascism. If we make it about those ideas, and what they mean in our daily lives, we’re gonna win.”

Swalwell’s comments come after Trump was ordered to pay almost $355 million in penalties in a civil fraud case and amid increased scrutiny faced by the president on his age and memory in the wake of a special counsel report on Biden’s handling of classified documents. The report noted that Biden had problems with memory and recall.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 26 points 8 months ago (4 children)

What if we had more choices? Why does our choice have to an old ass man and an old ass man with felonies.

They are all missing the point.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 9 points 8 months ago (8 children)

What's a realistic way to get out of a 2-party system?

Keep in mind that any change will require that the party in power enacts it, and they're one of the two parties in the two party system. Also, keep in mind that US elections are "first past the post", so voting for a third party weakens the candidate you otherwise would have considered.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

2-party system in reality seems even worse than 1-party. At least single party can't point at each other and say "blame them".

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

One of the key benefits of a democracy is that they are seen as relatively stable. In the systems that were common before (monarchies, theocracies, oligarchies, dictatorships, etc.) there were frequently rebellions or coups. One reason for that is that in a democracy, people feel like they have an option to change the system instead of just violence: voting. But, that's a feeling that they can change the system. It isn't necessarily true.

In a 2 party system where both parties claim to represent different views, people think that voting for the other party will result in the change they want. But, often it doesn't, because that isn't the change that the rich people and corporations want, and their money allows them to keep certain things off limits for both parties.

In a 1 party system, people might realize that if the party doesn't want to make a change, the only way to have the change happen is a coup or a revolution. But, 2 parties and the illusion of choice keeps people voting instead of rioting or rebelling, so the system stays around longer.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Sounds like oligopolic autocracy

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How will women ever get the right to vote without the right to vote? If that can be achieved, I think there are ways to ditch FPTP.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 months ago

Universal suffrage was inevitable. It was only a matter of time until indigenous people, black people, and women, were considered people.

Plus there’s a lot more “what’s in it for me” for politicians with those groups. You’re unlocking a whole new demographic of people who may want to vote for you, and certainly won’t want to vote for someone who is against their suffrage.

[–] doctorcrimson 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

A good first step would be to pass HR 1 For The People Act and then from there elect members of the party of progressive reform. Even just Independents who caucus alongside the party of reform.

A realistic way to never get out is to elect conservatives who by definition do not want reform, at least 34 or enough to stop any supermajority votes so they can filibuster nonstop for days, but for good measure enough for them to elect a majority leader who never calls things to vote such as Mitch "The Legislature Reaper" McConnell who let countless bills die on the senate floor having never been called to vote.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

So, the best way to get third parties is by voting for one of the two main parties?

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

As long as one of them is committed to electoral reform. But no, if not, you're trying to vote for the least destructive person. Biden is the least destructive person. Best not let Trump have America just because you can't get electoral reform this election cycle.

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

As long as one of them is committed to electoral reform.

They'd have to be more committed to electoral reform than to their survival as a party. I don't know of any cases where that has actually happened.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Women's suffrage. Men voted to reduce their own power by giving women the right to vote.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

Ok, that was a group that gave up power, but it wasn't a political party that gave up power. IMO it's going to be much harder to get a political party to give up power.

[–] doctorcrimson 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Or Independents who caucus with one of the two main parties to pass majority and supermajority reform, yes. However, in tough races then splitting the votes between progressive candidates is counterproductive.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Change the voting system. Preferential or many others, pretty much everything beats first past the post

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

The trouble is that the people who could enact laws to change the voting system belong to parties that would suffer if the voting system were changed.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Changing the voting system seems like a vital part of a solution.

Term limits may be anorher.

But the flood of money and influemce delivered by Citizens United has overwhelmed most checks and balances.

Despite how you may feel about Andrew Yang and his presidential bid, one of the ideas in his platform was meant to counteract some of it.

He called it Democracy Dollars and it was $300/yr of earmarked money, sepearte from his UBI money, that was provided to every voting citizen to spend on political donations - candidates, committies, etc. at local, state, or federal levels.

This would amount to over $1T of non corporate lobbying to help balance out the foriegn and/or corporare PAC sponsorships.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Changing the voting system seems like a vital part of a solution.

The trouble is that the people who could enact laws to change the voting system belong to parties that would suffer if the voting system were changed.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

States where Referendums are a thing might be a good path forward.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 8 months ago

Term limits only work if the limits were applied to big money donors. Otherwise, they just end up putting money even more in control.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Now is the best time to make more parties. When one is really weak. The Republicans are ready to fracture. There just needs to be many to replace them. Same with the Dems. Once we have like 6 choices, then it will finally become like most Europeans and for the people. Because there is no other alternative but to be accountable and keep the job.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In many ways, now is the worst time to make other parties because elections are so close. If you elect a 3rd party senator or congressperson, you might tip the balance so your least favourite big party takes control.

But, say you think it is a great time to do it. What's your realistic way to make it happen? The two big parties have control and they don't want other parties.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm not saying for this election. I mean it's a good time after this election. It takes time to build up steam for these things.

I also don't care. I just look at how Europe has better options and how they run their elections. I would like to copy it. Because they also have the highest satisfaction as a citizen.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago

Europe has always had multiple parties. It's possible to go from having multiple parties to functionally having only 2 parties. I don't know of any case where it has gone the other way.

Look, for example, at how many parties were in the running for Germany's first election after WWII:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_West_German_federal_election

The biggest party got just 30% of the vote. The 7th biggest party was still big enough to get 3% of the vote.

Or look at the history of French elections:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_elections_in_France

Even in the 1700s, there were never fewer than 3 strong parties. Since the 1870s, it's more typical to have at least 6 parties splitting the vote.

You can't just magic that up, it has to start like that. Once it gets down to 2 parties (or one party) those two parties make it so that any vote for a 3rd party is effectively a thrown-away vote.

[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago

Ok, so to get ranked choice voting, you're going to...?

Vote for a member of a political party that claims they'll implement it? In reality, they won't, because ranked choice voting hurts the two main parties and helps small parties.

[–] hglman@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Violence, coup d'etat, revolution, and civil war. This is the history of the change in human civilization.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You have plenty of choices, none of them are viable other than R vs D because there are 350 million people in the US and they're mostly all going to vote based on established branding of the big 2 parties. Convincing everyone to vote 3rd party in a FPTP electoral system is literally impossible.

[–] hglman@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Then we will die till it changes.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

most people don't vote

[–] doctorcrimson 2 points 8 months ago

What if we lived in a Utopia? What if "What-Ifs" were more productive uses of our time?

Have you ever contacted your representative with these concerns? They accept emails, these days. I once sent my Representative 38 pages split among 3 peer reviewed studies because her stance on immigration and crime conflicted with mine, and she thanked me for sharing my concerns.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

I don't see how someone younger is any better just by dint of being young. That's what a VP and a line of succession is for.

This is going to get all the more confusing if/when life extension rears its head.