• douglasg14b@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    This is exactly why we need ranked choice voting.

    Winner takes all essentially demoralizes and alienates voters and drives people who agree with each other to fight because they’re trapped in a broken system.

    So instead of fighting the system, it’s easier to just blame other people and alienate more of them against your cause, shooting yourself in the foot with ignorance. It’s kind of disgusting.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      How would we get ranked choice passed using the current two party system though? I can’t imagine politicians voting to give up power in that way.

    • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I’d settle for getting rid of the electoral college at this point. We could’ve had at least 4 years of Al Gore setting us on the right path to avoiding the worst of climate change yet here we are having to put up with a potentially third popular vote upset in recent history.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Why is it so common to blame the third party vote for democrats losing in 2016? It sounds like if the democrats would take an anti-war stance like the green party does, they would have won most of those votes too?

        Seems more appropriate to expect the party to reflect the population rather than the other way around.

        • Aqarius@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 minutes ago

          It’s the Schrodinger’s Tankies. Simultaneously so insignificant as a voting block that it’s a waste of time to appeal to them, and so influential that it’s exclusively their fault when the dems lose.