• orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I think you need to look at the above the graph and try again, maybe with less f****** around and more using your brain.

        • Senal@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 minutes ago

          Is that a thing you have to apply to some formal committee for?

          Or do we have to ask you specifically whether or not it qualifies?

          Ooh maybe there’s ASCII symbol for it like ® or © ?

  • WeUnite@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    6 hours ago

    This is a lie. People just spread this to trick you into not voting so the Republicans win.

  • samus12345@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The short term effect of voting for the “greater evil” (or not voting at all): straight to the far, far right.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      The time to vote for someone good is the primaries, which set what the dichotomy of the actual election is going to be like. In the November dichotomy, voting for the lesser evil is kinda the only option unless you want Big Evil to win.

      Yes, it would be better to “merge” the main election and primaries into a ranked-choice vote but that’s not happening anytime soon.

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The time to vote for someone good is the primaries

        “The time to vote against evil is in the bullshit private competition that the party can and does rig, ignore, or not bother with at all.”

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Yes, which is why voting is not enough: you have to campaign for the candidates you want to see. The ranked-choice system would fix this but that’s off-limits for now.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    13 hours ago

    In other words, “B-but…”

    Meanwhile, Trump takes office <again> in 2 months. Keep polishing that halo tho!

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 hours ago

      It’s incredible that libs still haven’t figured out that vote shaming doesn’t work. Instead of doing some reflection on why Trump won, there’s just more of the same moralizing happening.

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Remember, Trump is so supernaturally evil that everyone has to drop their principles and vote for the blue coloured genocidal fascists, but not so evil that Democrats should have to actually make any effort to win the election.

      • Simmy@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Dems lost twice with the same rhetoric. Vote Dems or get trump. I thought they learned from the past, but no, just double down.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    22 hours ago

    No.

    Look at how the system actually works. There are two choices. Both candidates have to compete for all the people who vote. If you sit out the election that doesn’t mean either candidate will try to get your vote; they’ll ignore you and go after the people who do vote.

    Someone else came up with this analogy. It’s like the trolley problem except the there’s a third option. The third choice is to throw the switch to “Neither,” but “Neither” isn’t connected and the trolley kills someone anyway.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      My friend, what you wrote totally ignores the passage of time. Everything you wrote is true if we only look at one election, and none of it is true if we consider the passage of time and how pressure operates. If the political party is not getting votes, if all of their candidates are losing, either they will disband or they will find different policies to push.

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Let me explain something you may not be aware of.

            The man was an entertainer. His job was to make people laugh. I can cherry pick his work and come up with all kinds of absurd ideas he put into his act.

            If the only argument you can make is based on a comedy routine, then we have nothing more to discuss.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Let me explain something you may not be aware of. Entertainers often say serious things that cannot be said in other mediums. If you don’t understand that Carlin was doing political commentary, and appreciate his insights then you’re a very dim individual indeed.

            • Grapho@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              8 hours ago

              Yeah bro, the anti war hippie who was challenging the FCC in the 70s would have totally been team corporatocracy. Carlin had several interviews where he talked about how the two party system in America is an illusion of choice and ragged on Bill Clinton for being phony, and that’s the farthest left liberal candidate in like 30 years, a fucking neoliberal.

              Yall sound exactly like the conservatives claiming MLK.

              • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                8 hours ago

                Like I said, if you can’t come up with anything except a comedy act, we have nothing to discuss.

                Here’s a clip from his early days, proof that he couldn’t possibly have ever changed his thoughts about anything.

                https://youtu.be/-sx-7NucjEk

                • Grapho@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 hours ago

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKO8qMJtbng this is from the 90s through the early 2000s, but I imagine you’ll find another reason to dismiss his words to pretend you know what was in his heart was different tho.

                  For the record, I don’t agree with his defeatist outlook, I think there’s comedians with better takes on American politics, but to pretend Carlin would be blue MAGA just because you wish him to be is ridiculous.

    • Belgdore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Or as Rush put it, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

    • WeUnite@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      6 hours ago

      You understand how things work! Ignore the apathy trolls. They are trying to silence your vote. Here’s what actually happens if you vote for the lesser of two evils. You’re rights are protected and next time use the primary process to pick someone even better.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 hours ago

        You’re rights are protected and next time use the primary process to pick someone even better.

        Oh, Like how we voted for the lesser evil in 2020 and didn’t have a fucking primary in 2024. Don’t tell us to do something that your party makes sure doesn’t happen.

    • ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      14 hours ago

      If 5% of the general election popular vote for POTUS, knowing that the candidate cannot win, still voted for the Green Party platform then what effect would that have upon the Democratic Party platform?

      On a five point difficulty scale this is a two. The test gets way harder than this.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        12 hours ago

        If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a tea trolley.

        Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn’t vote for the alternative.

        All the ‘what if…?’ games in the world isn’t going to change that.

        • ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Thank you for the opportunity to teach.

          If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a tea trolley.

          Minimization.

          Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn’t vote for the alternative.

          Red herring.

          All the ‘what if…?’ games in the world isn’t going to change that.

          Minimization.

          This is a bit better than typical nonsense because there’s two tactics in a sandwich. Next is usually ad hominem. But, this one may have another trick up their sleeve.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Simply naming fallacies isn’t teaching. The point of learning fallacies isn’t so that you can just name them and feel like you’ve made a point.

            • ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              I asked a question. I received a fallacy sandwich in return. There’s no point in investing further.

              Simply naming fallacies isn’t teaching.

              unsupported

              The point of learning fallacies isn’t so that you can just name them and feel like you’ve made a point.

              strawman

              • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 minutes ago

                The point of teaching is sharing knowledge, not just poking holes in whatever argument you can (intentional hyperbole, not strawman)

                The point of learning fallacies isn’t so that you can just name them and feel like you’ve made a point.

                strawman

                Instead of just “strawman, therefore you’re wrong” and leaving it at that, how about you explain what was incorrect in that statement. That way you become more understood, and everyone understands you more.

                This isn’t a courtroom debate. This isn’t a debate you “win” or “lose”. This is a debate where everyone should be trying to understand each other, so that everyone ends up better off by the end. This sort of debate is a cooperative thing, not competitive.

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Right now the reality is the Donald Trump is going to take office because a lot of people didn’t vote for the alternative.

            Red herring.

            You’re going to have to explain that in detail. Trump got more votes. He won. How is that anything except a cold, hard fact?

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Are there more examples of this happening? One event isn’t a very good sample size… “IT DIDN’T WORK GUYS, SEE?!”, I mean, sure… But there are more circumstances and variables and conditions to an election lol.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          40 minutes ago

          How many times do you want to move to the right and not back to the left? How many more times will it take to satisfy you?

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Pray tell, how is strengthening unions & workers rights

          Strikebreaking and photo ops didn’t strengthen shit.

          forgiving student loans

          Was the only bright spot in his presidency.

          Now how was supporting a genocide “left?” I mean, it may be to your left. Maybe you want active participation?

        • Christer Enfors@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          If the republicans win, it goes further right. If the democrats win, it stays where it is. So the only movement is to the right, never left.

          • Victor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            That simply explains what’s visible in the image, not whatsoever why.

            If the democrats win, it stays where it is.

            Like, why is this the general assumption?

            If this were true, there wouldn’t every have been a democratic president, right? Except maybe once in the beginning?

  • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I feel as though there’s a significant amount of extra info that isn’t strictly conveyed here.

    The core issue is that you only have 2 real options in america, third parties may as well not exist. So, come election time, your harm reduction option is to vote for the least evil party.

    But that’s not the way to solve the issue, and neither is abstaining or voting third party, IMO. The way to solve the issue happens between votes. Picketing, protesting, demonstrating, taking action, making noise. You won’t solve the broken 2 party system at election time. But you do have to actually get out and take action, not just say that you will and keep letting the overton window shift right.

    (Take with a pinch of salt because I’m not american)

    • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I mean, you’re not the first one to say thing. People picket, people protest, people make noise. College students are arrested, protests either get Zero media attention (or worse, are regulated to an ineffective location because of regulations) or the protestors switch to disruptive tactics that actually get noticed and are demonized by everyone for it.

      Like I keep hearing this “You have to go out and take action”, EVERYONE IS! People are walking up and knocking on people’s doors and getting punched in the face. People are outside houses getting cops called on them and arrested. Everyone is now more able to point out the bad actors and exactly how that’s effecting the parties and policies.

      You have Bernie Sanders and AOC out protesting and “making noise” in the spot light every damn day.

      • third party doesn’t work
      • you can’t solve the 2 party system
      • The way to solve the issue happens between votes

      our election cycle is every 2 years or less depending on the occasion. IT IS ALWAYS ELECTION CYCLE IN AMERICAN POLITICS. They have to plan early and extensively to knock off any candidate they don’t want (pulling national resources to squash anyone they view “outside” their establishment).

      At this point the “make noise” comments need to reiterate what the end goal is for that make noise. You’re setting people up to just be angry and upset and protest the inequality or inefficiencies of our system when that’s exactly what the politicians want (it’s a feature, not a bug). No amount of protesting, a litany of policies at that, will be effective when the complete political spectrum is against change. Take a look at the Civil Rights Era and the voting that was concluded, it looks completely unlike anything we have now.

      The political parties have strengthened their stranglehold (I’ve argued in the past that they are “political parties” in name only, they are more incorporated or an oligarch representatives at this point and should be regulated as such). They listen to power only, the power was taken from the working and lower classes a long time ago. We get our shows we can put on, but it doesn’t move the needle anymore. It used to at least force them to talk about moving the needle, even that’s gone now.

      • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I think its quite obvious that the people I’m advising to get out and take action are the people who… aren’t? I’m well aware that action is being taken and that it is growing in numbers, but more needs to be done.

        That aside, how does voting third party or abstaining from voting affect change against the issues you’ve highlighted above? Because I don’t disagree with the issues you’ve raised.

        • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          How exactly does “picketing, protesting, demonstrating, taking action, making noise” affect change against those issues, when the Democrats will just ignore you and get your vote anyway?

          • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I’m really wondering if next election cycle we’re gonna hear people say “we’ve got to vote them in first then pull them left” again. It was a notably absent phrase this past election. Biden most certainly did not move left from his “Fundamentally nothing will change.” platform.

            • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Well, I was reliably told by ten million Vote Blue No Matter Who people that there wouldn’t be another elections if Trump won, so I guess we’ll just never know…

    • ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      The core issue is that you only have 2 real options in america, third parties may as well not exist.

      There’s false assumptions necessary to reach this conclusion. Typically the false assumption is that the role of a third party is to win. The root cause of making this assumption is often that the scope of evaluation has been limited to one term or cycle.

      • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I’m not convinced that voting for a third party has any positive effect, in one election cycle or over longer time. But I’m open to hearing your perspective.

        • ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          12 hours ago

          The false assumption that most make is that one cycle doesn’t effect the next.

          However, if a third party garners just 5% of the general election vote for POTUS then their platform and higher quality candidate will be on every ballot in the next cycle.

          If there’s a third choice on every ballot then the the third party platform places tremendous and immediate pressure upon the platforms of the two major parties. The third party doesn’t actually win unless the other refuse to compromise. Long term, the continued threat is of greater value than a subsequent victory.

          But, the electoral scheme doesn’t work unless leftists trust leftists to determine the collective risk of voting third party for the states they reside in. Even Jacobin failed to trust twice.

          Things are pretty fucked. Electoral means are slow. I tend to advocate for boycott, strike, and riot (encompassing a wide scope of wisely breaking laws).

          • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            I suppose that is a tangible way to affect change under the existing electoral system, so more power to you. I guess, with that in mind, you need to vote third party on an occasion when third party will actually get that 5% threshold, which as you say takes trust.

            • ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              need to vote third party on an occasion when third party will actually get that 5% threshold

              non sequitur

              You weren’t really very open to ideas. And, you were the best of the bunch in this thread.

      • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I mean sure! Take the whole CEO situation and springboard off that, you find yourselves in circumstances similar to pre-revolution France so the conditions are right.

    • doingthestuff@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      21 hours ago

      This. I’m in the US and was fully prepared to protest whether Harris or Trump won, I’m opposed to them both in different ways. Trump and team may get me off my ass very quickly though.

    • ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Accelerationism is more ethical than neoliberal denial. By voting for the bigger evil you’ve made yourself the lesser evil.

  • aliceblossom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    There is a better way! Ranked choice voting means no more voting for the lesser of two evils. Look into fo yourselves and others - vote to change the voting systems near you!

    • ebolapie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 minutes ago

      Five states banned RCV this past election. You’ll never guess which group made that happen. But hey, both parties are bad.