• Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Stop thinking that you vote “for” someone in a FPTP system. You don’t. You vote against the guy you don’t like.

    It sucks, and I hate it, but don’t delude yourself into thinking otherwise. We’re playing a badly-designed game with a shitty controller and we’re only allowed to press a button once a year at best.

    Think Twitch Plays Pokemon, but with a lot more trolls and no moderation. There will be a constant stream of people voting to do something stupid and destructive, so you spend all of your time voting against them.

    Oh, and their votes count for more, so they can win even if there’s fewer of them. All we can ever hope to do is try to stop them and hope they don’t fuck everything up and give themselves even more power before the next time we’re allowed to pick a move.

    Yay America. Greatest democracy in the world right there.

    • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Both Democrats and Republicans have a vested interest in keeping the system as it is. They won’t change it unless citizens make them change it.

      Honestly I’m kind of losing hope that it’s even possible at this point.

      • Except, as far as I can tell, the system is designed such that citizens can’t make them change it-- what are you going to do, vote for nobody and force the government to fix it’s shit before electing a new president? I mean, you could revolt but I think we all know how quickly the government would act to squash any meaningful attempt to. And if Project 2025 is allowed to play out, then military can be dispatched to handle simple protests instead of the police, so good luck pressuring the government to do anything at that point.

        They already put snipers on rooftops at every University for the Palestine protests. Supposedly this was for public safety as there was intel that things would turn violent, but who really knows the truthfulness of such intel or where the order came down from? When the military becomes your police, this act would pale in comparison.

        Remember this when you go to the polls, or when you are considering not to.

        • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Need to stop looking at the big picture first. There’s more than just the presidential or senatorial or even Congressional elections. There are local elections that have a much bigger impact on how your life goes than you realize. Do you know who your mayor is? Do you know who your state senator or alderman is? Most people know who their governor is but do you know who your lieutenant Governor is? Who is your state’s attorney general? Generally speaking the Secretary of State administers your electoral process in your state, do you know who your secretary of state is? Did you vote for your secretary of state? Did you bother to find out who was running against them in the primary election?

          These are the questions most people don’t ask don’t even think to ask, and these are the questions that have the largest impact on how our country is actually run. In the long run the presidential election doesn’t matter as much as these because these are what determine how the president ends up actually getting elected. I almost lament the 17th amendment changing the way senators are chosen. Because when senators were chosen by the legislatures in the state people had to pay more attention to what their state legislature looked like.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Technically we get to press the button twice because there’s primaries (and, to a lesser degree, caucuses), but people need to be engaged in the process a lot earlier than the September/October/November period in which most people actually are paying attention.

      • Aabbcc@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        there’s primaries

        Except not really because everyone said they won’t run they’ll just let Biden have it

        • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Stop focusing so much on the president. There are other positions in the party, ones who influence how our elections are handled, who are actually more important in the long run.

                • Decoy321@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Right, because he’s the only reason reality isn’t all perfect sunshine and rainbows.

                  My point is that nothing’s perfect. You often have to settle for what’s real.

                  Plus, there’s at least one person I can think of that’s worse than Brandon. Do you need a hint?

                  • Aabbcc@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    My point is that nothing’s perfect. You often have to settle for what’s real.

                    Why can’t the DNC run a better candidate?

                    Sure vote for the 81 year old husk but why defend him? If trump wins its his fault for running such a miserable option for the “not trump” side

                    If trump is really so bad that we cannot let him get elected, why not just run an easy win with a competent nobody candidate with Brandon’s moderate nothing platform

    • overeager@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      i think it’s the opposite. in FPTP system the largest minority (of voters) wins. if you vote against one candidate, it will (probably) create/be another minority. to make sure the candidate loses, the largest minority have to agree for another candidate, just voting any other candidate won’t do. related cgp grey’s video - https://yewtu.be/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo.

      edited to clarify. lets assume the election results as:

      • candidate A - 20%
      • candidate B - 35%
      • candidate C - 15%
      • candidate D - 25%
      • candidate E - 05%

      candidate B won with only 35% voting for it while 65% voted against candidate B. clealy the majority of people voted against candidate B, but that doesn’t matter as in FPTP, not majority but largest minority (35% that voted for candidate B) wins.

      thus, i think you vote for not against in FPTP voting system.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s an early-stage FPTP system. After a bunch of people with minority support start winning you end up with two options, and you vote against the one you hate least because there’s not really a choice anymore.