this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
1042 points (95.1% liked)

People Twitter

5466 readers
1011 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 7) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The lack of snide comments about the US educational system is deeply disturbing.

1,254,809 - 1,254,529 = 280

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Usually when I read “both sides are the same”, it’s a blue conservative like you trying to make people critical of the Democratic party seem unreasonable.

Both sides are capitalist and conservative, but there are differences for sure. Dont you want more differences?

If you wanna really shut up those people bitching from the sidelines, the best way to do so is to put them in the game! Force them to show us how to do things since it’s so easy and they have it all figured out.

Switching away from first past the post voting allows people to vote for who represents them best while still counting their vote against those they dont want to win. Just search for videos on FPTP voting if you want an explanation on how and why the spoiler effect exists.

Electoral reform is possible in each individual state (for now), we dont need federal reform! Maine and Alaska have already passed electoral reform.

Republicans are moving to make alternative electoral systems illegal in their states. Why would you want to use the same voting system republicans prefer?

More political parties means a higher percentage of the population is representedby their choices in the voting booth. More people involved in the electoral process, more people engaged.

Its a win win win all around for not just the people, but also for the democratic party. More people voting means more democratic votes. The numbers dont lie. So what’s the hold up blue states?

You believe it’s critical to vote for the democrats to beat the Republicans, thus you should 100% be fully invested in passing electoral reform in your state.

Electoral reform needs to be the number one priority for every democrat. This is a existential threat to our nation, so we must use EVERY tool at our disposal. No more waiting. This especially goes for those in blue states.

Consider starting a campaign to change how we vote in your own state! Force our representatives to compete with fresh outside ideas. We deserve the best representation, not excuses.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Where's the white people twitter?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I can imagine that there would be less reason for many to vote when there are only two options to vote for. What would it take for USA to implement a multi party system like many of the other democraties in the world?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Basically a complete teardown and overhaul of the system. The biggest problem is that seats in congress are not proportioned representationally. For example, in the UK, if a particular party receives 5% of the vote, then roughly 5% of the seats in the House of Commons are assigned to members appointed by that party. In the US, if a party receives 5% of the vote, they get nothing. Additionally, the US is further hampered by the fact that we elect our president directly instead of going with a prime minister approach, where the minister is appointed by the party or party coalition that won the election. Because of this, there is a lot of pressure placed on voters in every election to vote for the candidate they hate the least, since if they don't, there's a good chance that the candidate they hate the most will become president.

If we had a representational vote, on the other hand, people could feel free to vote for whichever party most suited their political tastes, knowing that they will have a chance at being represented in the government that follows the election. Often times, a single party doesn't win enough votes to have a majority in governments like this, so they have to cooperate with other parties to form a coalition government. In situations such as these, sometimes small parties can play a pivotal role. For example, in the 2017 UK general election, the number of seats needed to secure a majority was 326 (650 seats total, need more than 50%), but the Conservatives only managed to get 318 seats. They were able to team up with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), however, who had gotten 10 seats in the election to form a Conservative-DUP coalition government. So the people who voted for DUP in that election got some extra concessions from the new government because the Conservatives needed them.

Because the US system is an all-or-nothing affair, where we are concerned only with someone winning a plurality rather than a majority of the votes, it necessarily will degrade into a 2-party system over time no matter how many parties you start with. It's just a mathematical reality. For example, imagine you have 6 parties, and the vote breakdown is as follows:

  • Party A: 38% of the vote
  • Party B: 32% of the vote
  • Party C: 12% of the vote
  • Party D: 11% of the vote
  • Party E: 5% of the vote
  • Party F: 2% of the vote

In this situation, voters would quickly realize that party F doesn't have a chance to win going forward. So they're more likely to vote for a party that doesn't align as well with their politics, but that actually has a chance of winning in future elections. Maybe they give their votes to Party C, for example. Over time, this effect is carried out again and again, and the numbers of people who vote for the two biggest parties reach a sort of equilibrium, with all of the other parties dying out or having next to no votes. Because the people voting for Party F get nothing if their candidate loses, they are heavily incentivized to settle. So, in effect, our current political situation is a result of the systems we chose, and their effect on game theory.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

not twitter (tumblr)

no evidence that any of these people are white? advocates a position that protects the interests of POC?

why is this posted here? this is such a useful and well formed post but i have this community blocked and only found this thru some modlog drama. whatever lol. saving this for later reposting somewhere more relavant. thanks for sharing OP. :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

...should white people not be advocating positions that protect the interests of people of color???

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Well, the author of that tweet is certainly white, as can be seen by her profile picture.

However, the tweet is neither the majority of the content nor the center of focus of this post, so I'd also argue it doesn't really belong here.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›