Really you don't need to read more than one chart:
If you vote for anyone other than Harris, you're voting for Trump:
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
218 points (87.3% liked)
politics
19119 readers
4936 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Largely it has to do with the form of government. Countries with many (too many?) choices are Parliamentary forms of government:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system
The US is a Presidential system, not a Parliamentary one.
That is just bullshit. While your president is powerful, a lot of the power of government resides within the parliament itself.
As long as US media calls candidates of other parties as "independents" your political system stais a fucked up mono party system.
To change the Satus quo, laws must put in place, like in other countries that force media to represent all parties.
In addition you have to stop with this excessive money dependent political campaigns.
Those are gatekeeping tactics designed to keep the power in the hands of the two major parties.
There is no reason why your system could not work with more competitors.
edit: also, using a voting mechanism that was good in times before telegraph, telephone and internet makes it nearly impossible for smaller parties to get anything out of an election.
There is no reason not to use the popular vote. None!
There are lots of competitors in US elections, but most are eliminated during the primaries.
When you have more than two candidates in the final round, the winner may not represent the will of the people. You can end up with a majority preferring A to B, a majority preferring B to C, and a majority preferring C to A. No matter who wins, the majority can identify a preferable candidate.
In fact, Kenneth Arrow mathematically proved that multiparty elections will always produce paradoxical results like that. That's why the winners of multiparty elections are often decided by elite kingmakers, eg Macron.
I see the issue with a president. But most legislation comes out of the Senate. Having more then two parties represented there forces compromises. And the wishes of more people have to be considered the get the required majority.
And if the congress is more diverse, the president looses some powers, as he can not rely on having the majority at least for two years of his presidency. He also would have to compromise all the time.
Just admit it, your system is broken.
First of all, in a presidential democracy the president keeps their powers regardless of the composition of Congress (not just the Senate).
It's true that in order to pass legislation, the President has to cooperate with Congress. But I'm not sure why you think that a more diverse Congress would "force" anyone to compromise. What actually happens is that nothing gets done.
In fact, this is why the purest multiparty democracies, like Italy and Israel, constantly fail. Multiple parties are "forced" to compromise. They can't or won't, blaming their opponents. The government is paralyzed and falls. New elections are held. The composition of the legislature changes (or not). Multiple parties are "forced" to compromise. They can't or won't, blaming their opponents. The government is paralyzed and falls. New elections are held. Repeat ad infinitum.
I am living in a multi party country. I am experiencing the hurdles and the benefits of it every single day. Coalitions have to be formed to get the majority, smaller parties getting influence because of it.
We are getting stuff like increased minimum wage, social benefits, legalizing cannabis, and more. And not because the senior partner in the coalition wants it. Because of the junior partners. They are required to form a majority, so they can state their terms also.
And yes, some countries with more then two parties in the parliament are failing. What about the US?
Got some universal Healthcare yet? A livable minimum wage for everyone including waiters?
Effective countermeasures to climate change?
No? See, also failing. And that lies in the nature of countries. Sometimes they fail.
You assume that US democracy is failing because it hasn't delivered progressive goals. But the reason it hasn't delivered progressive goals is that it's a democracy, about half the country is not progressive, and there is no national consensus on those goals.
It's true that in multi-party democracies, it is easier for a progressive minority to make its voice heard and achieve its goals. But it's also easier for a right-wing minority to make its voice heard and achieve its goals. For example, in both Italy and Israel.
In the US the fucking right wing has 50% in the polls. What are you talking about?
~50% of the people ate voting for a lying, narcissistic Nazi. One of your supreme courts justices took "presents " from someone who has a hitler singed version of "Mein Kampf" in his possession. Right besides ohter Nazi memorabilia.
And your concern is, that it would be easier for a right wing minority to gain power? You have a right wing majority.
We ate shoked over here in Germany that our far right has more then 20% in election results. Your far right has 50% and one of your presidential candidates represents them.
We had a right wing government under Trump, yet somehow Trump didn't achieve most of his goals.
He couldn't repeal progressive health care legislation. He couldn't leave NATO. He never built that stupid wall on the Mexican border.
He did manage to enact tariffs against China. But only because Democrats supported them too.
Finally, he got a tax cut for the rich without support from Democrats. That's his main legacy.
And that's the difference between your country and mine. In yours, a junior party can achieve its goals. That's great when you agree with those goals. Not so great when you don't agree with them, like in Israel right now.
In the US, often even a majority is not enough to get what you want. It means progress is very slow, but we've avoided several potential catastrophes.
He got abortion rights overthrown, handled the pandemic so badly, that the rest of the world laughed at the US, and got himself and his family richer by talking money and presents from foreign powers.
Your argument boils down to: in the US political system it is hard to change anything and therefore we are protected from "worse"? Does this argument still stand with the supreme court ruling about presidential immunity and trumps statements about dictator on day one or "you never have to vote again"? Project 25?
So, in my country we are moving towards a livable feature for citizens, in your country you are stuck with a system that only benefits the wealthy. And every approach that could change that will be undermjnedby right wing lunatics and their donors.
He didn't get abortion rights overthrown single-handedly. Anti-abortion activists have been working on that for decades, starting with the appointment of Clarence Thomas in 1991. Trump was simply responsible for the final step.
Progress is slow. But in a democracy, your opponents will inevitably have some victories. Fortunately those are slow too.
If your country is making progress towards a better future, then you should thank your fellow voters not your election system. Because a different group of voters could use the same election system to make things much worse, and in fact they have done so elsewhere. What have people like Trump achieved when they won elections in your country?
Anyway, the US is stuck with American voters. So I'm glad our election system enforces patience.
I take that ;)
But srsly, it is not voters or voting system. It is both.
Imagine there would be a MAGA party with equal chances like the Reps, how would that change the policies of those parties? And would this influence the voters behavior? That is not a rethoric question, it is a thought play. I, as an outsider, would assume that the extreme right wingers would unite under the MAGA flag and their policies would adapt accordingly while the Republicans would go back to their kind of normal.
There are already factions of "normal" Republicans and "MAGA" Republicans under the Republican banner. Their disagreements are internal but occasionally visible. They were on full display earlier this year, when they couldn't decide who would lead the House.
Another example: this week the Republican speaker advanced a MAGA friendly position on the budget and then immediately withdrew it, presumably due to internal pressure from the "normal" faction.
Exactly. And there comes in the issue: if you want to vote conservative you have to take the far right bullshit. There is no in between. There is no "conservative without that nazi bullshit". So, if they could separate bit still have some power in the sense of seats in the parliaments, would that impact the political landscape?
If you are a "normal" conservative, you can vote for the "normal" conservative in the primary. And there are plenty of places where most conservatives are "normal" conservatives, like New Hampshire and Maine. They tend to elect "normal" Republicans to office, like Sununu and Collins.
Whereas places where most conservatives are MAGA, like Florida, tend to elect MAGA Republicans to office, like Gaetz. When "normal" conservatives run in Florida primaries, you can vote for them but they will lose.
So it's not true that "There is no conservative without that nazi bullshit". In fact, if you wanted a non-MAGA conservative president, you could have voted for Nikki Haley. But she was ultimately eliminated by MAGA voters.
There are many more like her in power elsewhere in government. Unfortunately they are mostly cowards (like Haley herself), and prefer to remain silent than to challenge MAGA in public.
I see your point. But that is such a toxic environment, and as you mentioned this can be observed from a far, that I would assume many prefer to stay under the radar to be able to at least something and not thrown under the bus by other Republicans.
Having more parties solves this part of the issue. And if the MAGA party or the Republicans end up with more votes is a completely different thing. And a thing I am scared to think about
I think it might make more sense to view MAGA as the "senior" partner in the Republican party at the national level, whereas normal conservatives are the "junior" partner at the national level. Hypothetically I think MAGA could get 30-40% of the national vote, with 10-20% for normal Republicans and 50% for Democrats.
That means normal conservatives have some influence in the party overall, but ultimately they are not in control and are always at risk of being discarded. At the local level, normal conservatives might be the senior partner or not exist at all, depending on where you look.
I feared as much.
It is getting late over here, so thanks for the great discussion!
Amd I wish you good look in a few weeks. Feeling with you over there