centof @ centof @lemm.ee

Currently browsing from [alexandrite.app](https://alexandrite.app/) an alte

---

Read more

Posts

5

Comments

274

Joined

2 yr. ago

But more than 80% of the Americans have little to no say in how the government works. There's a Princeton study that 90%+ of Americans have little or no impact on US Policy. It's very much a cop out to blame Americans at large because it minimizes the harsh fact that money and the people who use it are what influences our system.

Why not both? But your right only having 2 functional parties gives them a quite a bit of leeway. Since you only have 1 (or maybe 2) other choices, you functionally have no choice.

Exactly that is exactly my point. Calling something a mathematical fact is in essence claiming it is always true. Which in this case is false. But at this point, some people are just following acceptable groupthink and not actually listening.

What do you claim I am wrong about or don't understand? If I clearly don't understand it then why did you feel the need to point that out?

I value what you say and would not laugh at you for expressing your beliefs. :P

NH literally had to break either their own state law to move the primary, or break DNC's rules to have a primary that counted. And their republican state legislature would not allow them to move the primary. So they literally had no choice in the matter.

How is it in any way fair that 2 private organizations get to decide if the American people even get a say in the 2 (realistic) choices they have?

P.S. I'm assuming you mean might where you put 'foundy'. I don't know how that got there but I'm guessing a phone keyboard.

Dean Phillips got right around 20% even with the fact that Biden did a write in. I'm honestly kinda surprised it's that low. I would have expected there to be more than that considering the write-in.

Not that it matters since the DNC took away New Hampshire's say in the matter by nullifying their delegates. It is kinda horrifying that a private organization (the DNC) can just decide who has a say in choosing which candidates of the 2 we get to choose between.

You seem nice. I at no point refused to listen.

I stated I agree with their overall point in all my comments. In general their point that not voting helps republicans is true. But it is not always true, therefore, it is not a 'mathematical fact'. What I disagree with is their false claim that it is a mathematical fact. It is not certain and provable that voting for a not voting for a candidate or voting for a third party helps Republicans. There is no mathematical evidence for it provided.

A single republican who previously voted for Trump voting for a third party or declining to vote in 2024 'helps' Biden. That disproves the original claim that not voting or voting third party helps republicans.

Exactly, voting for someone is helping them get into office. Therefore, voting for candidate C is helping Candidate C. It does not help Candidate A or B. Similarly, voting for candidate B does not help candidate C or A.

In your first example with a tie, 3 voters chose to help candidate A, 3 voters to help candidate B. 1 person chose to help no one by not voting. That 1 person did not help A or B. Trying to argue otherwise is nonsense. It's like saying by not downvoting a post with a misleading headline I am supporting it.

I would agree that not voting does usually hurt the democratic party, but that doesn't mean it is always the case.

I understand our voting system. None of what you said mathematically proves anything.

But if you want to be ignorant and spout falsehoods that is your right.

I already pointed out 3 false 'facts', and I agree with your overall point. Just make it without the psuedo facts. Your point would be much more convincing without them.

Not voting/third party voting helps the Republican party. This is a mathematical fact.

False, If it as a mathematical fact prove it.

Every single person who doesn’t vote for Joe Biden and could is supporting Donald Trump.

Also false. You are relying on the faulty assumption that there either candidate is entitled to your vote.

There is no “sitting out” option. It does not exist.

False. You are not forced to vote for anyone.

I agree with your overall point, but could you make your point without spouting blatantly false information that is just the party line.

In what world does : Not voting ≠ voting for someone else.

This article is devoid of real info. It just goes over the bickering of politicians.

The program is not ending yet, It will continue until it runs out of funds. Those who are already enrolled will keep getting benefits until at least April 2024. If (Big if) Congress agrees to provide further funding before then it would be extended. New enrollment for the program is ending February 7. Source: https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/us-news/personal-finance/2024/01/21/65ad1fe4e2704ef0658b4588.html

Because they control the FTC and any other regulatory agencies. It's called regulatory capture. The only other way they can be held accountable is through the pay to play court system which is biased towards them because they can drag it out until the other party gives up.

I can believe it. Very few politicians (and probably no GOP politicans) are fans of RCV and other systemic democracy reforms. But don't ignore the fact that the most successful way to changing the state laws is through ballot initiatives. It is the best tool we, as citizens, have. Marijuana, minimum wage increases, and abortion access have all been won through ballot initiatives. Every state has some form of ballot initiative that can be used although some are more restrictive than others.

Pretty much the only way we’re getting RCV at this point is either the complete destruction of the GOP, or federal mandate.

I can certainly understand this viewpoint, but to me it seems somewhat like defeatism. I have very little hope that our politicians will willingly take federal action on issues like RCV and campaign finance. The opinions of 90% Americans have very little impact on if Congress will make laws about that particular issue.

Money does. They serve their donors not the American people. And their donors largely want status quo.

Local and Direct Action on the other hand works and is achievable. Women's suffrage, interracial marriage, and marriage equality all started with local grassroots movements before they were enshrined into law nationwide. More recently it's been marijuana which started with a few states legalizing it and is now widespread even in red areas. It wouldn't surprise me if it is federally de-scheduled soon. That was all made possible by it first being legalized in colorado and then in many many other states.

"You know... morons"

I mean sure, it would be great if they did but have you seen our federal government lately. It's all they can do to keep the government funded.

It wouldn't require an amendment to do at a federal level, all congress would have to do is pass a law requiring that states that decide to choose their electors via popular vote do so by RCV or STAR. However, if they did that it red states could theoretically pass a law saying that state representatives get to choose the electors instead of the people.

I think the easiest way to actually change the system (instead of simply hoping for change from a federal level) is to push for the change locally. That means push for your city or your state to adopt RCV. Represent us has 10+ campaigns going on in various states that are pushing for various types of voter reform.

The 12th amendment did not impose any specific requirements on how states should allocate electoral votes. Electoral votes are entirely different than normal votes. The 12th amendment is referring to electoral votes not normal votes that you and I cast. States aren't even required by the constitution to have an election. They aren't required to hold a popular vote or election to determine how their electoral votes are awarded in presidential elections either. Instead, it is up to each state to determine its own method of selecting electors who will cast the electoral votes on behalf of the state.

I agree with you, but it is worth noting that most election laws are done at the state and not the national level. If US Congress required states to use RCV, you would have a weird mismatch where national politicians and state politicians were elected with a different system. The US federal government only has the legal authority to change election laws for national politicians not state politicians.

I imagine that would cause some confusion when your state politician is elected by FPTP and your national politician is elected by RCV.

Represent.us is an non-partisan organization working to help push RCV on a local and state level. I just found it from lemmy earlier today.

Source? What part is that in?

Election laws are currently largely controlled by state or local governments. That's why Maine and Alaska were able to change to use RCV recently.

Thanks for sharing. Looks great.

Charged because of business vs residential zoning.

Abolish Zoning