• 0 Posts
  • 67 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle




  • Sure, that lets people vote for who they want and still vote for someone that will actually win in a larger election, maybe pick up some more local offices.

    Frankly Democrats should be big on RCV. The hard right and moderate right vote together, but the progressive is more split and a larger chunk refuses to vote strategically, at least if that is their only vote. RCV gives then the ability to vote the way they want to and still vote for a candidate with more broad acceptance.

    Not sure it would have done anything in this presidential race, since there’s no sign of third party vote being enough to change things in any remotely close state. It might have at least relieved the vitriol between would be allies over Democrat voters refusing to vote with the harder left versus the further left refusing to vote strategically with the Democrats.

    There would remain the hopefully miniscule but very loud progressives that think either the electorate goes perfectly for their perfect candidate, or else someone like Trump should win to teach those voters a lesson, and maybe break things so hard that a path forward for their favored leaders to get in power.



  • So long as we have strict elections of a singular position like president, you are pretty much going to have to vote for lesser evil. It doesn’t matter how many parties are running, the president is a singular office.

    Other nations with more robust parties sidestep this by having an elected body figure out the executive, rather than direct elections of that office.

    if you want those third parties get them into the house and maybe the Senate, where the task is feasible. For the singular president of the nation, whoever is doing the voting will have to be strategic. I’m disenchanted when I see those parties just make a presidential run without really investing much in the down ballot races.

    The fixes are either removing direct presidential election, or severely curtailing the practical powers of the office. We shouldn’t be so subject to the whims of a singular position.







  • Sadly every major power tends to be the baddies to some extent, it’s how they get to be and stay major powers. We just get to grade on a curve. Nazi Germany really set the curve and the US got to be the pretty unambiguous good guys, at least up to the firebombing campaign in Japan, the nuclear bombs, and being complicit after the fact in Japanese atrocities by shielding them from consequences.

    While we have an “ambient” level of baddie-ness most of the time, we at least have balanced it out by sometimes defending against unjust violence and providing humanitarian aid.

    Now Trump seeks to turn that baddie scale up to the max while simultaneously cutting out all aid efforts.






  • I’m unsure.

    I will readily admit that Vance is younger, healthier, more competent, and just as vile but better at not saying the quiet part out loud.

    However, for whatever crazy reason, Trump has his fanatics, and Vance doesn’t have those. What’s left of the GOP are people that have learned the lesson of kissing the ring of Trump. That’s no room for anyone else to lead, submit to Trump. Make no trouble for Trump, do everything you can to advance whatever he says. Do not call him on craziness, you’ll only hurt yourself. As a result, the GOP is unified behind him, with no one even pretending they would ever hold him accountable for anything anymore (remember whiffs of rhetoric early in his first term about accountability, with that having out quickly and stomped out thoroughly with the repudiation of Romney and Chaney).

    I don’t see Vance having that status. Without that status, I think vying to be the head of the party is back on the table. Infighting with the current leader becomes a plausible path forward. While he may chase his particular brand of vile agenda, he would be in competition with other GOP agendas.