I’m guessing the joke is that third party voters ignore the trolley about to go down one of two paths, instead deciding to stand next to a short piece of track connected to nothing with no trolley on it, so they can pretend the imminent disaster happening on the other track isn’t real
And there’s also a contingent of people on the trolley who are trying to get it to slow down, working their asses off to improve long term actual outcomes in the real world, whether related or not to the little lever, and the guy standing next to the empty disconnected track is claiming to be one of them and saying you must be against them and how dare you, you person-running-over-enabling monster, if you say anything against his strategy.
This is why I, as an autistic person, think internally using a sort of infinite mechanical analog diagram sheet thing.
Physical analogies are beautiful for how quickly they can convey a concept. Those disconnected tracks are a great representation of the third party voting situation we face, the “throwaway vote” problem.
I like the disconnected track because I didn’t even notice it for like 20 seconds of looking at the image.
I support voting Democrat in this situation but after the election, people should support fair vote us to get ranked voting.
And I thought this was perfect for demonstrating why people avoiding the donkey track for a single issue, no matter how bad, really need to look at the rest of the video picture, the state of the other choices
Blow up the train you spineless cowards
You’ll have to be more specific about what blowing up the train maps to in real life before I can tell you whether or not doing so would also kill a shit ton of people.
But to keep it in metaphor, there are also innocent people riding the train and blowing it up would kill them, too.
Kill your local senator
Propaganda of the deed is a powerful message
Yeah, if you made a habit of doing that we’d end to with more deaths and a lower quality of life overall.
Current US senators are not improving your life.
Most of them, sure. But killing them with any kind of regularity would have a number of knock-on effects that would severely decrease many people’s quality of life.
If your friend has a brain tumor, you don’t point a gun to their head and shoot it out. You find brain surgeons and have them remove it under controlled conditions. Supposing you can’t find a brain surgeon, it would still be better to learn brain surgery yourself and do a careful and thorough job than it would be to just shoot your friend in the head and hope for the best.
People like op.dont care and are bad faith trolls
You say that as if you’re not a liberal pretending to be a leftist.
You say that as though you’re the arbiter of what’s “left” and what’s not.
Call us whatever you like. We don’t vote for strike blocking genocide supporting candidates.
Cool, have fun with apathy, I hope it magically results in a revolution.
I hope your strike blocking, genocide supporting candidate magically results in more workers rights and less genocide.
You first.
The plan fails, the top track gets removed due to terrorist activities, and even more things are on the remaining track.
(If you ask me: Jan 6 should have had even more consequences for republicans, but they like to bend the rules to their own benefits)
It’s close enough to the tracks that it would hurt the hostages, and the wreckage would probably have enough momentum to hit them anyway.
This is a good analogy actually. Blowing up the train would feel good, but that isn’t going to stop the momentum, and it’s unfortunately virtually impossible to outright stop it’s momentum at this point. All that blowing up the train would accomplish is sending fiery wreckage towards the middle track.
This is why accelerationism is stupid.
That would just stop time itself
The problem is that we have two choices, and we will never not have two choices unless we do something about it. I can both say that Joe Biden sucks and we should do better and also vote for him because the other option is worse. This discourse that makes it seem like any criticism of Biden is pro trump is how we will end up in a slightly less terrible place. Cool. Really looking forward to that.
Also like what the fuck…I guess we have to kill Palestinians no matter what.
There is a third fucking option and it’s not doing a genocide.
There is a third fucking option and it’s not doing a genocide.
That’s only an option if you have a viable strategy for accomplishing it.
Which, of course, they don’t. It’s a vanity vote. They want to pretend they have actually done something without actually having to do anything of consequence.
It’s an expression of privilege.
If we’re interpreting their “third option” as a voting strategy and not convincing Biden to step in and stop the genocide, we can at least implement Approval Voting so that they can vote for all the “no genocide” candidates without having to worry that doing so could somehow backfire. Then, if they want or need to, they can cast a strategic vote to differentiate between different magnitudes of genocide.
we can at least implement Approval Voting
No, you can’t. You do not have the power to implement Approval Voting, and nobody who does have the power wants to do it. So it’s not gonna happen, at least not in the short term. Right now, anybody who wins has to win in an environment of First Past the Post. Nobody capable of doing that currently supports Approval Voting, so right now it is effectively not on the ballot.
This is what I mean about “hav[ing] a viable strategy.” Magically wishing Approval Voting into existence ain’t it.
Well the strategy is to work your way up from the local level because:
-
It’s easier for people to make change at the local level, Fargo and St. Louis have already done it.
-
Politicians tend to work their way up the ladder, and will be more open to using the system at higher levels if they already proved they can win under that system.
You have to remember that any real social change takes years, even decades of organized to realize. We didn’t go from Jim Crowe to the civil rights act in a fortnight, it took big organizations applying decades of pressure in multiple different ways.
If you want to be a part of the solution, join an organization dedicated to improving things. It doesn’t have to be the one I linked, but Election Science is the one working on approval voting. Local elections are such that one highly motivated person can build and run the organization to flip their local election laws, it could be you, but it won’t happen overnight.
-
Yes, we need to change the way we vote before voting for POTUS can really move away from a binary choice.
Great. That is a state issue, so pay attention to your state government, vote for state representatives that support better voting methods, and contact your state representatives to push for reform.
That doesn’t change this trolley problem.
As someone else pointed out, those in power are unlikely to change the voting system to reduce their own power. However, you really start at the local level with referendums, and work your way up. First, it’s easier to force change at the local level and second, politicians working their way up will be less hostile to changing to approval if they’ve already shown they can win under that system.
Step one: Stop rewarding genocide with votes. 🤷
I agree, now how do we go about making everyone else see it too?
Apparently we can’t in 2024. They didn’t hear us in 2016. They won’t hear us now in 2024. Maybe two Democrat juggernauts losing the presidential election to Trump of all people will convince them.
They’ll just blame the leftists they cant stop attacking then use it as an excuse to move further right yet again.
The problem is that we have two choices
The problem is that we don’t. If you’re not in a “swing” state, all the votes in the world for Joe Biden are meaningless. Win California by another million votes. Win it by another 10M. Have every single eligible voter in California turn up and vote for Joe Biden. He still loses the EC when the SCOTUS tells Arizona to stop counting ballots the minute Trump is in the lead.
Also like what the fuck…I guess we have to kill Palestinians no matter what.
We have to keep sending money to Israel because its the means by which we control the Suez Canal.
Except… the Houthis have control over the back end of the canal so long as they’re able to scare off shipping in the Gulf of Adan. So now we’re endorsing a genocide just for shits and giggles.
It’s almost like two organizations have totally monopolized US politics. It’s a billion dollar industry, and they’d both rather alternate losing to each other and keep their seat at the table than let anyone else play the game.
Its an enormously lucrative game, so who can blame them?
you blame us for going along with it and blame those who shame anyone who points out that we don’t have to go along with it.
I enjoy the self insert character of Zach in panel 4.
WEINNERSMITHHHHHHH
It’s interesting how much the vote DOES resemble a trolley problem. Generally, the only real point in favor of not pulling the lever is “You’re killing someone, it’s immoral to get involved. Life shouldn’t be in your hands.”
Which is still setting aside all the conscious choice by other human beings that IS happening come election season. Probably the biggest way it diverges is that a trolley is moving under its own “natural” momentum. In reality, it’s as though some Nazis are pulling the trolley along the track to the 5 people.
If that third track were an option the trolley problem would never have existed. If there really is a third track in the real-life situation, then the trolley problem is not a good analogy of that problem.
Sadly, in this election there is no third track and we are forced into choosing the lesser of two evils.
If you want a third track, push for ranked choice voting!
the joke is that you are actively removing yourself from the situation by making a decision to do nothing. In essence, that track has no trolley on it, and no people on it, meaning nobody dies… As long as you don’t look over your shoulder.
meaning nobody dies… As long as you don’t look over your shoulder.
The real joke is how the “no choice” position is such extreme nonsense that even something as dumbed down as a meme can’t make any part of it seem logical.
it’s not explicitly nonsense, one of the decisions that you can make in the trolley problem is doing nothing, this is the equivalent of doing nothing in a comedic fashion.
Standing at the lever, close your eyes real hard and wish there was a third choice as you hope someone else makes that choice for you
plug your ears, close your eyes, and yell “I CANT HEAR YOU” repeatedly over and over again.
In the same way ‘would you rather’ is meant to force a decision between two unacceptable choices, the trolly problem is meant to highlight the morality of refusing to choose (and ensuring the worse decision).
The third rail is just redundant.
This is the problem with the trolley problem.
If it were replaced with, say, being told to shoot one group or another by a sadistic guard, the possibility of refusing to choose would be more obvious in terms of what it means morally.
The trolley is an inanimate object. It isn’t making choices.
Political parties are more like the sadistic guard. They are making choices.
In the same way ‘would you rather’ is meant to force a decision between two unacceptable choices, the trolly problem is meant to highlight the morality of refusing to choose (and ensuring the worse decision).
in a really reductive sense, yes. The trolley problem is at it’s heart, a question of whether being involved in an atrocity is better than being uninvolved in an atrocity.
Very well, I shall push for it by
-
voting the same way regardless if the candidate supports it, and
-
suddenly participating in direct action, because we weren’t already doing that.
-
There literally is a third option that will be printed on most of not all ballots. Rank choice voting is huge but people should be willing to vote earnestly. Nobody wants to be the one to make the change and wants the world to change first but that’s not how it works.
In a FPTP voting system, you cannot vote earnestly. To do so all but guarantees the election of the opposition.
Explanation: https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
that video explains well how strategic voting ends up with two parties.
deleted by creator
And we have an electoral college, so actually you can still vote earnestly in most states without major concern.
No. In the current system you should not vote earnestly. In a fair system you should. Not in the one we have. The only moral choice is to select the lesser evil. Otherwise you might as well vote for the greater one.
Only if your vote might change the results. Which isn’t true for millions of Americans.
The tracks to the correct path can be built by passing state level electoral reform.
Abolishing the First Past the Post electoral system would allow voters to support third-party candidates without fearing they’ll spoil the election. This reform would invigorate competition in elections, leading to better-quality candidates for all voters. Moreover, it’s likely to boost voter turnout and civic engagement.
At the state level, electoral reform is feasible; Alaska and Maine have already enacted such changes, demonstrating its viability.
Despite this, some Republicans are staunchly defending First Past the Post voting, as seen in Florida’s recent ban on Ranked Choice voting. Fortunately, there are numerous of other alternatives available, ensuring that electoral reform can still progress despite such obstacles.
So, why do some blue states want to continueusing FPTP voting? Why continue using a voting system favored by Republicans? In states controlled by Democrats, there’s no Republican opposition hindering electoral reform efforts.
It’s apparent that Democrats acknowledge the flaws of FPTP voting, evident in discussions on social media where many Democrats caution against voting third party. It’s perplexing to recognize these flaws yet fail to take action to address them. Merely lecturing on the shortcomings of FPTP voting without pursuing solutions is insufficient.
Here are some videos on the topic if you’d like to know more:
First Past The Post voting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Other electoral systems to choose from:
Alternative vote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Ranked Choice voting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z2fRPRkWvY
Range Voting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig
Single Transferable Vote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI
STAR voting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-mOeUXAkV0
Mixed Member Proportional representation
So, why do some blue states want to continueusing FPTP voting? Why continue using a voting system favored by Republicans? In states controlled by Democrats, there’s no Republican opposition hindering electoral reform efforts.
FPTP favors whichever party is currently in power in a two party system. Solid blue states don’t want to switch because it makes their hold on power less secure. Same reason as Republicans in red states.
You’re factually correct, and I support your long term goal, but it’s not something we can achieve by November.
I swear I hear this regardless of how close we are to the next presidential election. Can we maybe focus on some of the other races on the ballot? I would love if we could get a Congress that was actually able to make good things happen, instead of trying very hard to do nothing so bad things don’t happen.
Congress might also have been able to get more done if there was a filibuster-proof majority for more than several months in the last several decades.
I do vote for the most progressive person available in the primaries tho.
The fact that we even need a filibuster proof majority to get anything done is yet another glaring example of how fucked we are.
deleted by creator
Yeah, the focus on winning the presidency ignores the down ballot, small market and “off-cycle” races, and, to get to fillibuster-proof majorities, those races are the ones that need to be won. Berating progressives in urban areas to vote for moderate liberal candidates for president is not exactly harm reduction.
Sorry, media is now handled at the national level so covering local and state races outside of ones that get clicks isn’t profitable
Oh, good! Is it also owned by large corporations who have interests that cause them to favor certain stories because it impacts their bottom line and the editorial desk does not have strong independence from the business side of things because of a monoculture of publishers? Surely, this will bring us a wide variety of political candidates and not an endless parade of arch-capitalists and fascists who give kickbacks to corporations!
Electoral systems is a pretty nerdy topic (despite how important it is for who gets power), so it is not an issue the typical voter cares for. Therefore there is not enough political capital for such large reforms to be taken on by politicians.
Based on the about of Lemmy comments advocating for it, it seems like the typical voter is pretty passionate about ranked choice voting.
Based on a super niche subset of chronically online youth - this applies to everyone. 🤪
Guys, I don’t know what’s going on in the world and their wars. I just want a president who isn’t abhorently evil. Do we have to revolutionize to find that 3rd option orrr?
Do we have to revolutionize to find that 3rd option
Pretty much. It’s against the interest of both parties to have more options because both are near-guaranteed to lose power if there were more options.
I assume your “abhorently evil” comment is based off support of the genocide in Palestine (which is a completely reasonable thing to describe as abhorently evil, I’m just being clear about my premise).
In which case, sorry, bad news, you can’t have that. Your options this time round are genocide supporter or genocide supporter. Somewhere down the line, years from now, the US electoral system may have been sufficiently reformed to make third parties viable. But this year that’s not going to happen.
So that decision is completely out of your hands. But here’s what you do get to decide; you can have an outright fascist, leading a party of outright fascists who have openly publicised their plans to turn your country into a fascist theocracy. Or you can have the guys who strengthened workers rights and went after major companies for union busting, hit Microsoft for $20 billion in back taxes, had the FBI raid a major landlord for illegal price hikes, brought antitrust lawsuits against Amazon and several other large tech firms, and secured billions in aid for Ukraine in their fight for their freedom. And that is literally just a tiny sampling of the good things that Biden’s government has done.
I don’t even see how that’s a choice. One of these two options is clearly and manifestly better than the other, no matter how disgusting it feels. A vote for Biden is not an endorsement of his position on Gaza. It is a tactical choice, nothing more. And if nothing else, its a tactical choice that will prevent the fascists from filling even more seats on the supreme court.
It sucks, but those are the only options. Sometimes life just be like that.
This guy gets it. I don’t see how this is so difficult to understand. Not voting is essentially skewing the vote towards the diaper-wearing Nazi-Clown you once already had for a president. Vote for the least evil party, it’s all you can do.
Then you all should have voted for someone better in the 2020 primaries.
Your argument is made every four years. The someday you talk about never seems to arrive. Which means the reasoning is missing something important.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
I think the choice is really: Does America deserve the lesser evil?
But what if I am a bad faith actor that only pushes the “no moral choice” position because I want to ensure that the fascists take power? Better yet, what if my Russian paycheck demands it. Then what do I do?
Are you forgetting about all the registered Democrats who voted uncommitted in the 2024 primaries? Not everybody who hates Biden is a Russian troll bud.
I’m certain ballots with good options are unavailable absent a revolution, but if we tried under present conditions we’d likely only get worse governance and maybe destabilize the global balance of power catastrophically.
Thank you! We may eventually have to but revolutions do not have certain outcomes and we face a second problem that in general will require a mechanism for global cooperation which is hard to do when the state with the military, cultural, and economic influence the US currently has plunges into chaos
We can have it for the low price of demanding it. Tell the Democrats you won’t vote for Biden if he doesn’t stop supporting the Israeli genocide.
You realize why the Ashley Biden rape showers with grandpa suddenly became nearly mainstream news and will suddenly go away if Biden does what he’s told?
If that’s how it is then we’ve already lost. People who would make up stories like that would rather take the mask off and destroy democracy then let us get in their way.
Oh, I didn’t say it was made up. That diary seems to be real.
I’m assuming the third track being entirely disconnected and therefore not a real option is intentional.
Either way, accurate
this one is actually really funny, i like this one.
Good shit.
I appreciate OPs honesty that Palestinians are dead either way.
Less palestinians will die under Biden. People who says “how could it be any worse?” have a severe lack of imagination and/or historical knowledge.
Less palestinians will die under Biden.
This claim is absolutely meaningless without evidence and some indication about how the situation resolves.
There’s a very good chance the moment Biden knows he’s won the election he’ll call you Bibi and go “thanks for your patience. Go nuts.”
I mean the right has already made it clear that they’re 100% pro genocide, straight up recommending that every Palestinian is killed. The worst Biden could possibly do is be as bad as Trump.
Ok? I’m still not voting for a strike blocking genocide supporting candidate.
And that places you in the bottom left corner of the cartoon.
Ohhhh noooooooooooo
You have no one to vote for. Every single candidate supports genocide. Biden, West, Stein, Sanders. Palestinian genocide or Ukrainian genocide. Pick your 'cider
Will do. But it won’t be Trump or Biden which is all that matters to you.
Ukrainian genocide
Yes, the “Ukrainian genocide”… You know that genocide used to be a word with a meaning, right? That we shouldn’t go around calling any conflict a genocide?
No matter what your opinion on the conflict, comparing it to the situation in Palestine is the same as denying it, there is no comparison. Russia is definitely not deliberately bombing civilian targets, we have only had the collateral damage that is expected from any war. And this collateral damage is infinitely smaller than any of the wars the United States has engaged in in the last 50 years. Do you call the wars in Iraq, Indochina, Libya and Korea genocides?
Trump stoked tensions needlessly by moving US embassy to Jerusalem
I guess people shouldn’t have voted for a terrible candidate in the 2016 DNC primaries.
I think people shouldn’t have voted for a terrible president in 2016 but what do I know
Sounds like the DNC primaries didn’t produce a candidate that was sufficiently popular with all the major factions of the Democrat voter base. I wonder what the solution to that could be. Guess we’ll never know since people like you refuse to have that conversation.
There’s a very good chance…
This is how you know you have brain worms. Biden has to keep the Jewish liberal vote so he’s supporting Israel. He also needs congress to fund ukraine which they won’t do without also funding Israel.
If anything, Biden turns his back on bibi as soon as the election is over and throws him to the wolves. Netanyahu is doing everything he can to get trump elected.
Biden has to keep the Jewish liberal vote so he’s supporting Israel.
When you say this while telling me I have brain worms it’s easy for me to come to the conclusion you think the desires of Jewish liberals are more important than mine.
And while that’s certainly your prerogative I have zero motivation to cater to it.
Okay, I’ll bite.
Why can’t Biden stop supporting Israel?
He needs liberal jews and lapsed Republicans that support israel in November.
The big funding packages that he signed were part and parcel with deals to fund ukraine.
Holy shit this has me crying
He needs liberal jews and lapsed Republicans that support israel in November.
Yet here you are attacking us. We can only conclude you believe their opinions are more important than ours.
I’m not attacking you. I’m saying as bad as Biden is for Palestinians, Trump is will be 1000x worse. I can’t believe that’s so hard for people to understand.
I won’t be voting for Biden or Trump. I anxiously await your non-judgemental response.
Future aged like milk comment? 🤔
wouldnt be a joke otherwise.
This is why the US should help move all Palestinians out of Israel. Relocate them to a place in the US. Give them a reservation land like the native Americans. They’re never going to beat Israel and the best solution would be to move and start over.
Why not move Israelis?
They already have a home.
So do (did) Palestine
stop the trolley, dumb fucks 😂
Fuck me this comment section is toxic
