this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
1197 points (96.7% liked)

Political Memes

5436 readers
3152 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes 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 misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

The Kentucky fried chicken chef guy is absolutely SLAYING those short shorts and boots 🔥🤩

Edit: apparently I already made this joke and forgot about it lmao

yeah...

It's the senate.

You forgot to look at the house lmao.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 12 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Blame Connecticut. It’s their fault. It would up benefiting the South, but it was Delaware and CT mad about larger states having more a say.

The South actually wanted proportional representation. They were growing faster and had more land.

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

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 hours ago

It would be somewhat OK if the House was much more powerful relative to the Senate, similar to how the (unelected) Canadian Senate rarely if ever opposes the will of the House.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 8 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't even care so much about the Bicameral Compromise; but I do care that the electoral votes apply toward electing the President.

[–] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 7 points 6 hours ago

The reapportionment act of 1929 is screwing us over in the electoral college. The House should have a LOT more representatives, which would make the it more fair.

But more representatives would make it more difficult for big businesses to bribe them, and nobody is going to vote to dilute their personal power, so changing that is a nonstarter.

[–] Moah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 64 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

It's a government by rich owners for rich owners and it's working as designed

[–] Letsdothis@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago

And none of you poors can do anything about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zip2@feddit.uk 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Should have stuck with the monarchy they had.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 4 hours ago

Brave of the Bri'ish to remind America they exist as we're on the cusp of our own outright Empire phase.

It's not poor countries that speak a different language that empires like to annex first.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

We have the technology to implement some direct democracy and get away from all this "represntitive democracy" that doesnt work so well. Let people vote on the actual issues and we'll get progressive policies pretty quickly, we wont get into wars, we'll spend much less on defense, and the corporatists wont be able to buy influence as easily.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

i honestly don't believe that any of this would be true. Unless you went the libertarian route and pretend that the people know better than the government at all levels. Maybe i'm just cynical. But there's a federal government for a reason so.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago

so you dont beleive in democracy, sounds like.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 74 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

We pay more in taxes than the welfare states, have less representation... Seems like there was something in US History about taxation without representation.

[–] bitwaba@lemmy.world 12 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Secede. That'll teach 'em.

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 9 points 9 hours ago

Dare I say... defederate? *smugface*

[–] LemmyFeed@lemmy.world 16 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Honestly of all the states, California probably has the best chance at seceding successfully.

[–] Saryn@lemmy.world 12 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if California's GDP has surpassed that of the UK, which would make it the fifth largest economy in the world if it were to secede.

[–] Chekhovs_Gun@lemmy.world 10 points 12 hours ago

A quick Google search says you are correct

[–] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

Of course, the US has had tons of taxation without representation, I have no idea what else you could be referring too.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 32 points 21 hours ago (10 children)
[–] Dry_Monk@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

But look at the US popular vote. Even with different representation of the populace, this election would still have been fucked. We do need massive reform of the US voting structure, but this is not the biggest thing. Getting rid of first past the post in favor of at least ranked choice would make a much bigger difference.

That would open the door for a true left wing party to actually have a voice.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 2 points 6 hours ago

Ranked voting is a very good thing all countries should implement.

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

But then the poor would run the country instead of a handful of unimaginably rich individuals! What kind of democracy would THAT be?

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 3 points 7 hours ago

We don't know but it was guaranteed to be different.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›