I don't like this meme
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
99 points (74.9% liked)
Memes
47380 readers
1646 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
If the vast majority of Americans believed the Democrats to be less evil, the Democrats would have 90% of the vote. If that were the case, the Republicans would move ever further left, perhaps even overtaking the Democrats, until they get a chance at winning again.
The reason the parties are right wing is because the voters are right wing.
That's why we need a communist revolution where everyone will be a happy little comrade
The reason that people don't vote Democrats is the same reason that people won't join your revolution.
If you found enough people to support a revolution, that'd mean you have enough people to change the system by simple voting.
Yeah, the two are totally the same. Thats why the Trump Admin is completely dismantling the state, destroying their network of allies and causing a mass famine via ceasing aid shipments while the dems... didnt do that.
Fuck your FPTP system btw, but comparing the two after the last 2 months just seems moronic.
Oh, and maybe, more of you should have voted.
hey only 86 million people didn't vote
Seems OG Lemmy hardcore dems have been overrun by critically thinking individuals.
This meme made sense in 2012, not when the Republican Party has decided to be the Anti-Democratic Party.
I'd take some less evil, please.
I don't understand why people who think this don't advocate for ranked choice voting. Seems like it would solve this issue, right?
You have a few options for enacting ranked choice voting at the national level:
-
Win hundreds, possibly thousands, of state-level House and Senate seats with the largest grass roots voter mobilization ever seen in the US to, a) enact legislation in all 50 states or b) ratify an amendment to the constitution, that mandates it.
-
Kill enough republicans in a national civil war to make sure that when elections happen, there aren't enough republicans left to win an election, then enact the above.
-
Overthrow the entire US government in a much bloodier national coup and set up whatever government you want.
Kill enough republicans in a national civil war
And democrats, too. Don't pretend they're not just as responsible for keeping fptp voting, their party depends on it. If you don't believe me, look into how coordinated the GOP and Democrats were when suing PSL and the Green party to keep them off several state ballots (and severely whittle down their grassroots funds with corporate-money lawfare). Spoiler: there was no overlap.
It's one party, two wings.
Imma be real as an European, we kinda have the same problem here even with better voting systems. You either vote for "nothing ever happens" parties or literal Russia funded reactionary nazis.
Even if it would, how would it ever get passed when the people who would need to pass it are the ones who are only in office because the system works the way it currently does?
This is just a recurring theme I've found when talking with liberals. They like to think about and suggest all sorts of policy ideas as though all we're missing are some smart ideas nobody has thought of. It's one thing to say we should have this, but it's another to have any idea of how it'd be possible to do. Since they have no actual analysis of the system, they'll just turn around and tell you to vote or call your representative. "We should get money out of politics!" "Yeah, well we checked with the people giving us money and they said no. So..."
Scenario I've been playing with:
Suppose you are kidnapped by two people. They tell you that one of them will shoot you and then let you go, but you get to decide who shoots. Person A says he will shoot you in the head. Person B says he will shoot you in the shoulder. Which do you choose?
The more think about this the more I like it. Both persons are clearly awful and contributed to the situation. Both could offer better choices but refuse. Both are rather similar in outcomes. But one is clearly worse.
Is it rational to choose to be shot at all? Is it rational to not choose the better of two alternatives?
If you don't choose, then someone else chooses for you
Then the people who claim to love you choose for you and say that getting shot in the head would be better for you. Any attempt to convince them otherwise is met with absolute disbelief.
Relative to the other fully developed countries, a mainstream Democrat is a homeopathic liberal.