• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle


  • It’s because the two-party system is a systemic problem. Our winner-take-all voting system always punishes similar candidates, so if similar groups don’t form a coalition and choose a single candidate to run for them, they will cannibalize each other and surely lose. So, you inevitably end up with two parties each representing all the factions on one side of the spectrum.

    As a result, anybody on the national level who decides to run as a third party candidate (a) doesn’t understand our voting system, (b) is just doing it for the publicity, or © is out of their mind.

    If we had a different voting system that did not punish similar candidates (like ranked choice), not only would quality third parties be possible, they would be inevitable.





  • Do you have any idea how long it took to make any kind of healthcare reform happen when we finally got the ACA? If we just remove it, that’s not going to make everyone “work that much harder to get Medicare for All”, it will set us back arguing over even the things that the ACA got us. Suddenly, denying coverage for pre-existing conditions is back on the table.

    And what the hell would Democrats say to the tens of millions of people who lose their health coverage when they vote to repeal the ACA? “Don’t worry, this is going to make things so desperate that we’ll all feel really determined to pass universal healthcare!”

    It makes absolutely no sense what you’re saying!


  • It makes perfect sense why we only have two parties while many countries in Europe have lots of parties. It’s not magic and it’s not because our parties are just so good at stopping third parties.

    The reason we are like this is because our voting system punishes similar candidates who run against each other. This results in parties that are more like coalitions, each made up of various factions that would be separate parties in a better system, who run a primary to pick one candidate to send forth, so that they don’t cannibalize each other in the general election.

    The bad part is that even the primaries generally have the same flawed first-past-the-post voting scheme, so similar candidates often have to strategically drop out or not run at all.

    This voting system desperately needs to be fixed. But you can’t fix it by simply acting like we just have to decide to have more parties, nor can you fix it by voting third party and screwing over one of the parties. I think this idea of voting third party in this election is appealing to some because it makes you feel like you’re doing something to fix it. You’re not.

    In my view the best hope of fixing this is pushing for election reform locally and winning over communities to the idea. There are some parts of the country with better voting systems in place. We should build on that.




  • I agree with the part about big corporations not actually caring about it, and that both the decision to stock and the decision not to stock are made cynically by a company like Target.

    What I don’t agree with is that getting mad about not having Pride stuff is equivalent to getting mad about not having Super Bowl stuff. Football fans are not an oppressed segment of society that has feared harassment and violence. There is not a constant threat of legislation aimed at harming their community. It’s also not important that football fandom is normalized by society at large.

    So even if we were talking about the Super Bowl, if 5-10% of people in the UK actually were American football fans, and were under constant threat by UK society, then it would be completely understandable to get mad at Target for being cynical about even that! Indeed, I guarantee in those places where Target isn’t carrying pride stuff, there are LGBTQ+ people living there.