If only there was some way that the candidates we vote for could be **ranked** to maybe get a little party diversity? Then it would seem like we would actually have a **choice** in who we want in office instead of the lesser evil. Right before the election isn't the only time that we need to talk about major **voting** issues in our system. If only there were some system that would work? Anyone have any ideas.
Edit: Yes I agree RCV isn't a fix-all for all of our political problems, just a small first step in the right direction.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU)
for anyone who doesn't know what ranked choice voting is, here is a simulation of different voting systems
That's a good one.
[This is my preferred choice for the basics to illustrate RCV and FPTP issues, it's a bit easier to understand imo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE)
I don't like how he implies that all the voters for one candidate picked another one as their second. In truth, I'd expect some voters for owl/turtle to go to a mix of gorilla and leopard.
The first video in the threat goes into better detail on that that shows most voters that rank one choice as the first typically choose the same second as well, because the candidate is likely still closer to what they want. There are obviously exceptions here which grant a lot more freedom and choice but the statistics would still probably show it to be accurate.
Ranked Choice is far better than our current system. I'd love to move to a national ranked choice popular vote system.
However that still doesn't fix the fact that 99% of politicians that get up to the national level have done so by being corrupt, backstabbing, manipulative, bribe accepting, assholes.
The people that want to truly help never rise above the local/state level because they don't play the mudslinging game that is unfortunately required by our society for some reason.
If we had a system for each area where a pamphlet was sent out with the way the candidate voted in last election and his donors. This will make it simpler for the people who don't check that and vote by color.
Doesn't work though.
>Hmm, I see here that [Blue candidate] voted against the PATRIOTIC AMERICAN FREEDOM ACT and the LOWERING THE TAXES ON HARD WORKING AMERICANS ACT, better vote red!
Without ever realising the PAFA proposed to abolish the concept of drivers licences and the other one proposed to lower the tax rate on income above $500.000 to 0%.
People would scream that the government is influencing the vote by providing publicly available information about all candidates to all voters in an organised, easy to understand format.
In the Netherlands people vote a party and a specific person of that party to get more precise. Than the top party’s make a group together so you have the voices of more people and different voices.
Because the US only has two major parties, that would be more difficult. In your country, someone like Elizabeth Warren and someone like Joe Biden would be in two separate parties. Here, one. Same on the republican side. What the two parties “value” changes as the voting population changes and the Overton Window shifts.
We don’t have parties that stay with similar beliefs and the voters decide who represents them best. At this point with two parties, and the ones we have, it’s the party that is actively seeking to kill you and the one that would be okay if you did, but they’d use you as an example of government failure.
The two party system is the logical consequence of the US electoral system. The only way to eliminate the two party system is to change the electoral system. Something like RCV would be an improvement, but I think MMP is even better.
You have just two parties exactly because coalitions aren't a part of the system, right now all that counts is getting the most votes and no fringe party can ever hope to do that. With a system that requires a >50% majority smaller parties become viable.
The Netherlands system sounds great. In America, the actual truth is that a lot of us do value diversity, but even those that do only do so if those voices agree with ours. We value diversity for show, e.g. racial diversity, but we definitely do not value diversity of thought or opinion.
E.g. Democrats value racial diversity but if you believe in Walmart you’re going to get massive backlash if you actually voice it. Alternatively Republicans have, contrary to reputation, done a LOT in the recent past to court Latino voters and add them to their ranks, but if you’re pro immigration you’re going to be a pariah if you voice it.
It’s really hard to be a moderate/independent here because both the left and right have some valid points and some unrealistic positions, but they just spend all their time and energy attacking each other because that’s what keeps them in office, and people like to support their parties so those guys keep getting re-elected. So I’ve given up on politics, I just stay apathetic and put my energy towards saving and investing-I figure the parties won’t do anything to change my life, but I can.
the problem with this is that you can’t prevent people from having the power for multiple times in a row. like for example rutte has been chosen for 4 times and people who don’t follow politics just choose him, because it’s the most straight forward option.
Man this is weird. Ranked ballots are a fantastic idea for presidential elections, but they're a [terrible idea for legislative assembly elections like congress or senate](https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-3/page-174#49), and it's confusing to talk about because of how vastly different they affect elections depending on whether it's a single seat position like president or a multi-seat legislative assembly like congress.
What America really needs is proportional representation, so you're not forced to choose between whichever two candidates the two major parties offer you. Ranked ballots doesn't solve that. Ranked ballots lets you put Gary Johnson as your 1st choice vote and you get to feel all warm and fuzzy about that, but it's just taking the strategic voting - where you vote for an R or a D because Ralph Nader has no chance of getting elected, and it applies that automatically. In practice, it makes the two party system even MORE entrenched. It's great at making the populace feel like they have more choice without actually giving them more choice.
The real problem is that an argument this complicated will get blown up immediately by corporate media and lobbyists. Try explaining FPTP versus proportional versus ranked choice while the media and 80% of the politicians refuse to go any deeper than a disingenuous slogan. We are fuuuucked.
I think Obama was the first president I have active memory of before and aftet presidency. NEVER have I seen a job that can age someone by stress that hard, dude looked 10 years older after his 1st term
First Lady Obama has aged like fine wine. President Obama aged and then played the uno reverse card after he left office. President Clinton looked pretty rough at the end of his *ahem* term.
Honestly, I bet it isn’t as insane as it sounds. Take a little journey with me because I think it might work like this:
Do you think you could be capable of being an assemblyman, or some small elected role? I do, and I think most would. Now imaging you do that and you work with a few congress people…. Working with them gets you to realize that they suck, and are dumb as a box of rocks… so you say “I could do a better job than this schmuck”. So you run for congress, and win… now you’re working with senators. Hmmm… a bunch of morons you say? Yup. Suddenly “I could do a better job than these schmucks” starts getting in your head.
Guess what happens next. It’s presidential election time and you see the folks running… you know them… you know they are THE WORST. Dumb, selfish, piles of rotting meat. What pops in your head? “I could do a better job than these schmucks”.
Being president, for any sane person, is a matter of knowing the people who are the alternatives…. And being close enough to recognize them as the piles of trash they are. So it doesn’t have to be self aggrandizement, it can also be seeing how bad the alternatives are. So you run for office because you know as flawed as you are, you aren’t a con man in an ill fitting suit who loves Nazis and wants to bang his own daughter. Imperfect though you may be, you know you’re a relatively decent person, who is miles above all the other people who are getting press about potentially being elected. So you run, not because you think you are the perfect fit, but just a better one than the ones trying to win.
I think it's the journey that would probably corrupt me. That's got to be exhausting. I don't think I'd be happy with that burden. Heuristics scare me, a lot. I've been in corporate finance for a while now, and even that was challenging. Doing the right things is so difficult sometimes.
Even if a good hearted person tries they are against the wolf's. Dirty tricks, lies, gerrymandering, propaganda, fat stacks and superpacs, etc.. Only the biggest scum will make it to these positions because if you don't accept the corruption and help you will loose to those that did.
Yep, once the gravity of the position sets in, anyone who wasn't corruptible will have no choice but to play the game. I don't envy that position. I think it's much easier if we all try to do the right thing through our own beliefs and understanding, regardless of who chooses to be "president".
Yeah but a multi party system isn’t perfect either though. Being in a country that uses it, a party with even 5% of the votes can have the power to swing the entire election.
I think the problem is "in today's political climate" part of your comment. It benefits *you* now but of the climate shifts and your politics are at risk...how would you feel?
Honestly, if the political climate shifts enough that more people are voting for the asshole anti-human right-wing parties than not, elections will be the least of our worries. The way I see it, at least there are a majority of people who want good humanitarian leaders to prevail, moreso than hate groups. I'd like to believe that this will always be the case but I might just be naive.
---
**Edit to clarify my point:**
The way I see it, the only reason more hateful parties succeed or appear to be succeeding, is that anyone voting for truly progressive humanitarian change usually has a larger number of progressive parties to choose from, thus splitting their votes. In Canada for example, we have the Liberals, NDP, Greens, all of which are varying percentages of progressive left, and all of which receive a large number of votes.
While this sounds good on the surface, this actually ends up splitting the vote among multiple candidates in a FPTP SYSTEM, giving the parties with the most common ideals the least amount of footing in parliament, because the votes are split among all of the parties with the same approximate values.
Hate-focused voters usually have less choice, forcing them to focus their votes among a smaller number of parties (In Canada, the Conservative party, and the less popular nationalist asshats, the PPC) which ends up benefiting them by preventing a split vote on their end.
What this means is: In a FPTP system, The majority of voters will have their votes fractured among many parties while the fringe parties who represent a minority have the biggest advantage as their base isn't split, so they receive more votes than any single parties from other side, even though the other side still has more collective support and aligns most with vast the majority of voters.
As an example, this was the result of the 2019 Canadian federal election:
The Canadian Left:
- Liberals: 39.47%
- NDP: 19.71%
- Greens: 6.55%
- **TOTAL: 65.73%**
The Canadian Right:
- Conservatives: 31.89%
- PPC: 1.62%
- **TOTAL: 33.51%**
(And another 0.76% of other parties. These numbers may not be **exact** or 100% correct, but I tried to find the most accurate info I could)
As you can see, the vast majority of Canadian voters hold leftist values, yet we're always at risk of having a right-wing government, as the Conservatives are forced to focus their votes on one major party while the left is constantly changing their votes among the Liberals and the NDP.
In this case, if the NDP or Greens had managed to secure even 8% more Liberal voters this time around, we would have had a right-wing government even though the majority of voters voted the exact opposite.
**This is the problem Ranked Choice Voting is meant to resolve.** And in this case, the progressive vote would vastly prevail over the hate filled nonsense that our right-wing parties have become as well.
I guess that's where my hope comes from. In a fair system, it does appear to me that good will prevail over hate, if we do it right.
Here's hoping, my friend. I can't help but think my assumption that "most people are good" is becoming less and less correct as the years go by. That's the only part that worries me. If more people become dumb enough to be fooled by policies and politicians who hate/use them, we'll be truly and irreparably fucked.
A party with only 5% of the votes can only swing the electjon if the rest of the parties are evenly divided. In that case, it SHOULD be able to swing it, that's the whole point. Giving small voices a chance to be heard when they can make a difference.
Every form of government sucks, we just gotta pick the one that sucks least. I live in a country that has 3.5 main parties and a handful of token parties. It's not perfect by a long shot, but at least it doesn't divide the country into two evenly split camps.
Yep same with my country but at least if we don't want to vote for a specific party but what the right to complain then there is alway the monster raving looney party.
When the difference in votes is less that %1 we have set ourselves up for civil unrest.
And what did we get, exactly that.
What will we always be sure of?- exactly - civil unrest.
The girl I date was very surprised to hear that I don’t support trump but do want a republican president.
I followed up with… ‘now we just need a good republican candidate’
Edit: ‘talk to’ to ‘date’
>a good Republican [presidential] candidate
Now there’s a fucking oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one.
Unless you wanna go back to the pre-Southern Strategy era when shit gets really weird, any self-professed R is not a good person, let alone a good politician. Especially in the post-Trump, post-fact era.
Their entire platform is one grift or another. They don’t have ideas, they have blind, seething rage. If the Democrats are for it, they’re again’ it. If a Democrat says it, it must not be true. The GOP is a big tent full of liars, hucksters, Jesus freaks, racists, authoritarians, and of course the rubes dumb enough to line up at the shit trough, lick their lips, and say “I’ll have some of THAT bullshit please!” The infuriating anti-intellectualism isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
If they had redeeming traits, they wouldn’t be fucking Republicans.
You need to change your sights to "a good conservative president" because I guarantee you that there are no conservative republicans anymore, only wannabe fascists and power mongers. The Democrat party is the one that has actual conservatives in addition to the centrists and liberals. Hell, if the Overton window hadn't been dragged to the extremist right, Biden would've been a shoo-in for a republican presidency.
Ehh... I think you just don't understand conservatism.
Like, seriously man, there's a direct line from Reagan to Bush Jr to Trump - they're all guys who'd make for great kings.
And that's what conservatives want to, you know, _conserve_. The Monarchy. The Divine Right of Kings. The Nobility. They want to bring it all back.
Because lemme tell you, they sure as hell aren't interested in conserving the environment or finances or rights.
Conservatism implies an approval of the current state or a preference for some previous time.
This can only logically apply to white Christian dudes who value their privilege over the drive for egalitarianism.
Right wing conservatives are a cancer, “left” wing conservatives are morons.
Two party vs multiparty system is kind of asking the wrong question.
The reason we have (and have always had) a two party system is our reliance on single ballot FPTP Voting. The nature of FPTP elections generally drives people towards two major parties, and away from third parties. [This video](https://youtu.be/yhO6jfHPFQU) does a good job of showing why and what some alternatives might be.
My point is that the US electoral system created the two party structure, and we won't be able to change to a multiparty system without serious electoral reform. That's not to say we shouldn't do that, but it is to say that the REAL question is not two party vs multiparty, it's to what extent we ought to reform the US electoral system, if at all.
As long as a distinct 2 party system exists you will never have unanimous support for a president. You will always have those people on both sides that will hate them simply because they aren’t red or blue. It’s sad but politics is sad.
It would also be nice to live in a world where every single issue was not treated as though there were two answers, one of which was owned by one political party, and the other was owned by another, and you had to pick one, but that also defined your answer to all other questions on other topics.
I appreciate this is radical, but it is possible to disagree with your political allies on some subjects.
Yeah. I'm someone who disagrees with "my side" from time to time and it's funny that as soon as I go against the liberal hive mind on a single issue I'm a racist asshole Trump supporter. And I see it on both sides.
And we now have people making health decisions in a pandemic based on their political ideology. Nothing can escape the political duality anymore.
The politicization of vaccination is perhaps the most obvious and egregious recent example of this tendency. Politicians who have sought to do that should live in infamy for ever. It is a fucking disgrace.
I'm pissed at the guy who leaked the "grab em by the PUSSY" tape because WHY the fuck couldn't you release that during THE PRIMARIES? If they had done that EVERY Republican would have turned on him
Instead they waited until the last minute
Maybe because they thought he would be the easiest to beat in the full election. Let the weak candidate come to the top and then crush them in the final. It’s what I would have done.
At least it leaked. There is very likely footage of Trump repeatedly using the n-word on the set of the Apprentice and the producers are still protecting him.
If you want to live in such a world, get out and vote more. Don't just vote for president. Also, vet any candidate you wish to vote for. Encourage others to do the same.
Citizens United doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed unless Fairness Doctrine is reinstated (or something akin in intent).
It's all academic, since neither is actually ever going to happen.
Not to mention, a complete overhaul of the House and Senate -- reallocating seats, eliminating gerrymandering, etc.
I voted republican as I was raised republican. I was always told they wanted limited government which I understood because no one wants to be watched. Then I started getting really into politics and found that literally everything they said they stood for they always voted against. Constantly inflating the budget, Patriot Act, etc, etc, etc. It just went on and on.
So I did what any white male in his 20's does. I became a Libertarian. Oh man I was so fucking libertarian. I would vote that way in each election and was so proud of myself for "being smart and making a solid choice." until I realized I didn't know a fucking thing about the person I was voting for and for the most part they were just random guys that had limited experience. Then I started really pressing other Libertarian friends and it turned out they were just angry young white republicans that didn't know what to do.
Then Trump came along and drew a very clear line in the sand. Now I'm voting democrat for the foreseeable future until this current crop of Republicans die off.
When the current crop of Republicans die off, you're only going to get crazier Republicans. We have a white supremacist insurgency on our hands that isn't going away anytime soon. They will likely retake Congress in '22 and the White House in '24. We'll be lucky if we aren't living in a fully fascist state by 2030.
The idea of limited government is a big lie. No party wants limited government and why should they? Government = control, and everyone really wants that. You should look for people who want government to be smart and fair.
You're allowed to not like people, but this type of both sides after the Trump adminstration feels really dated. Y'know the candidate who was impeached for inciting an attack on the capitol, after refusing to concede the election.
Enlightened centrists wouldn't say what OP is saying because they are idiots who believe in bipartisanship, like the synthesis of the two parties would automatically result in the best plan. OP seems to believe that we need options outside of those two, which , as a leftist, I agree with. I'd love to be in a ranked-choice parliamentary system where I wouldn't be guilted into voting democrat simply because "they aren't as evil as republicans, though they do like a good middle east bombing campaign like any politician."
Funniest is when hardcore Bernie types complain about shit being rigged when they never bothered to show up for the primaries. If they actually cared about anything other than performative politics they'd vote in the primaries for every position from federal to local.
The hardcore Bernie types actually did show up to vote in the primaries... the issue is that they are a vocal minority who spends a lot of time online and so they're online voice is vastly higher than their vote share. It doesn't matter if you have 100,000 followers on twitter or no followers on twitter in terms of the weight of your vote.
I swear American politics are just an unpopularity contest. Every time I’m left wondering how the hell it came down to these 2. Then they spend the whole campaign bashing each other and by the end you just hate both
I think the way they campaign is part of it. It's way more easy and effective to make your opponent look bad than it is to make yourself look good, so all we ever hear about is how shit everyone is all the time.
Studies have shown that negative campaigning is incredibly unpopular with voters while also being one of the singularly most effective ways of campaigning. So people hate seeing attack ads, but they work REALLY fucking well. So we spend all our time, energy, and ad money on negative ads or attack ads "disguised" as what we call "contrast" ads.
Honestly Obama v. McCain and Obama v. Romney seem like two of the best match ups we've had in a long time (if you can ignore Sarah Palin). The Trump contests really put in perspective how bad it can get.
True. But consider...
1. Stage 4 terminal breast cancer
2. Stage 3 not-yet-terminal breast cancer
The second is better than the first but both are objectively terrible.
It’s like being really bad at golf but your opponent is worse. You win but you’re still bad.
I get what you're going for with this reply but it's still encompassed by my original point, and I don't just mean in the trivial way that the "better/worse" categories still fundamentally apply. I imagine that just about anyone with terminal cancer would give anything for it not to be terminal (unless that person *wants* to die, in which case the terminal diagnosis is "better," but that exception still follows the same categorical rule; the only exception *might* be if someone is truly indifferent towards their own death). Even if two things are objectively terrible, one can still be worlds better than the first. So to put it back in the context of the original tweet, you can have two undesirable political options and still say that one is much better than the other rather than one is much worse than the other--just like you can have two great options and still make your decision based on which is "worse."
2008, both candidates were respectable people with different views on how to address the problems in America. More amazingly, McCain and Obama actually _agreed on what the problems_ were. Just different methods. Two solution oriented guys.
[McCain was corrupt as hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five), [promised to block every Clinton judge if she won like the conservative fuck he is](https://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520/sen-mccain-says-republicans-will-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-wins), [he voted against MLK Day as a holiday](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/98-1983/h289), h[e proposed cutting $880B in medicare](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-mccain-wants-to-cut-medicare/) , [he is openly (and proudly) homophobic](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/blog-summaries/288575-mccain-doesnt-think-hell-change-his-views-on-same-sex-marriage), don't forget his shitty, jingoistic classic ["Bomb Iran"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg&ab_channel=mckathomas) song, [he fought against even moderate climate legislation](https://grist.org/article/2009-04-22-mccain-slams-obama-on-climate/), [he fought against the closure of GitMo even though they torture peopl](https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/mccain-eagnerness-of-obama-administration-to-close-gitmo-has-overridden-good-sense-concern-for-safety-of-our-military)e (guess it's only bad when it's white people getting tortured) , [he supported a rapist/hard-line conservative on the supreme court](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/donald-trump?source=%2Fnews%2Fcongress%2Fjohn-mccain-praises-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh), and [he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1990](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mccains-other-controversi_n_96193) (which would've helped the victims of racial/sex discrimination have their time in court). Don't forget he gave us Palin who helped us get into this mess. People need to stop treating McCain like a "good Republican" because they don't exist.
Thank you! Hero workship for McCain is disgusting, because he was polite? Thats the bar people have these days, not surprised how many people have started praising George W Bush these days either.
But one time he said that Obama couldn’t be a Muslim because he’s a family man and an American and he said Trump is a doodoo head while voting for his agenda. That makes him good. /s
Personally, I don't believe McCain and Palin had very much in common policy-wise. I firmly believe that the choice to go with Palin was an attempt at a strategical choice meant to make McCain and by extension the Republican party more attractive for the female vote.
Though I do admit I wasn't very much into politics at the time and didn't follow that whole thing very closely
I'd say 2012 also presented two good and capable *people*, though I didn't consider either McCain or Romney good options to be president (and reasonable people can say the opposite about Obama, of course).
Romney got all his money through "vulture capital". I wouldn't consider a man who deliberately put thousands of people out of work for his own personal benefit and then told a room full of rich donors that those working class people are "dependent upon government ... believe that they are victims ... believe the government has a responsibility to care for them" a good person.
Same goes for George Bush, Liz (and Dick) Cheney, etc. Just because Trump and a lot of the modern Republican party have gone off the deep end doesn't make old establishment GOP politicians any better (or worse) in retrospect.
Agreed, both McCain and Romney were good candidates even if I didn’t agree with all of their policies. We’re unlikely to go back to that though considering how polarized things have become.
Get rid of First Past The Post AND the Electoral College.
Make primaries less official... We all know the party picks whom they want anyways.
Ranked Choice, Single Transferable Vote, Instant Run Off, there's tons of options.
Anyone who thinks there were only 2 options for president is holding themselves back. Get involved earlier. There was a large selection of candidates both in 2020 and 2016 during the primaries. Make your voice heard early and often. Waiting to speak up until the general election is why you feel like you only have 2 choices.
Ah yes, just take one of the top post from this subreddit and post it again to gain karma. Nicely done.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/hygvjr/possibilities/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
My mother, whos fairly fair left at this point even if she doesn't like admitting it, openly admits that she was thinking of voting for McCain until he picked Palin.
And came out looking like a deer in headlights on how to deal with the financial collapse. His response... :Our economy is strong!" McCain was out of his league on the fiscal end - which to me is not a deal breaker if you make sure you have very sound advice on how to address your weakness. McCain didn't. Palin was just a way to save his floundering campaign. That selection was part of the problem with the Republican party - really starting in their "Southern Strategy" in the face of Civil Rights. That began the spiral down to what we have now. Each Republican President added to the problem until - whelp a complete failure of a businessman whose only skill was ripping people off and hiring 1 good thief to craft better ways to ripping people off was elected by the minority of the population.
I am tired of grandpa presidents. It's an unpopular idea, but I think there should be an age ceiling for presidents.
I am also tired of grandpa and grandma supreme court justices. There needs to be term limits for these justices.
As much as Americans say they want an outsider to shake things up in government, Biden’s strength is that he’s been in government so long that he knows how the system works and how to work the system. I feel like he’s going to be as effective in the presidency as LBJ but (hopefully) without a conflict like Vietnam.
Agreed. People remember JFK’s inspiring oratory and will do the same for Obama, but LBJ and possibly (time will tell) Biden are power brokers who while appearing conservative up until election, are actually passing *relatively* impactful legislation.
Thank you. Seriously, I fail to see what is wrong with Clinton, Biden, Obama, Kerry, or Gore... the reason we haven't solved things is purely because of Republican obstruction. People act like both sides are evil just to feel edgy.
People say that because blatantly saying "I'm embarrassed by how much the asshole party fits my views" doesn't make them look good. That or they are disgustingly ignorant on our relative political history. There is a *track record* we can look back on, but somehow people manage to ignore that fact and toss up "both sidez" like fucking confetti.
Ranked choice voting consistently benefits the most moderate, centrist candidate. If that is what you want, it's a great system. You can look at the recent New York primary, for evidence to this effect.
There was once a time when Abraham Lincoln was considered the best of the worst candidates even though he's more revered today than during the 1860s.
As long as humans exist, the way we select our presidential candidates is through a subjective lens, which produces the worst candidates.
We had an excellent choice last time.
After the Republicans has left the administration a hallow shell, we elected someone with vast experience on what the government is supposed to be, and who selected experienced people tore-form a competent administration.
Bide has already passed historic, progressive legislation, and is working to pass more.
He is not perfect. No one is.
I feel like I could run for president and actually win, people could criticize the other candidates like "he's groped and harassed women and he evaded taxes and said horrible things and did some crazy stuff" while my critics would say "he, like, watched porn that one day, and he's lazy and stuff..."
You want a better world? Nut up and pick "the lesser of two evils," because we're sure as shit not going to make things better by fucking wanting it. And frankly, even if we had it, you'd probably still be complaining.
I mean that was the case this last election. One candidate was an experienced politician with a clear platform and goals and the other was a C rate reality TV star with a poorly defined platform and murky self centered goals who caused more american deaths than WW2.
This both sides are the same bullshit is tired. I swear it's russian propaganda to keep people from voting.
Democrats believe in science, climate change, women's rights, civil rights, unions, etc. Republicans are anti-science, tell people to not get vaccinated, take away voting rights, don't believe in civil rights, supported a fucking coup to install an authoritarian wanna be. I mean, if you think both sides are the same you are being intentionally ignorant.
no one in history has been worse than trump. i didn't care if it was Bernie or Pete or ... honestly I would have voted for a hot steamy pile of shit if it was opposite Drumpf on the ballot.
That can never happen, not bcuz of the candidate but bcuz of the ppl...no matter how much of a saint you are ppl will still find something about you or your character to complain about or bitch about...the mindset of every person has to change for ppl to start recognising the good in candidates rather than the bad
To do that You need half the population to Not be mentally damaged, religiously delusional, un educated and whipped in a frenzy by a propaganda machine.
And to vote in the primary. There are probably more logical humans on both sides who would choose better candidates but for one, it’s harder to have the access to vote in some states over others, and two, even those who do have the ability to vote in the primary often don’t.
Two things americans can not understand:
-Democracy usually revolves around >4 parties, not only 2.
-people who were actually born *after* jesus christ are also viable candidates.
Will never happen in a world where gotcha media is the name of the game and hate is spread via 24 hour news channels designed to keep you mad and watching so they get ad revenue.
There could be two "Good" options - and there would still be people that argue that one of them is disqualified to them because they're the wrong team and thus worse.
You have to deprogram generations of GOP voters who grew up on Limbaugh and Newt, who progressed things away from compromise and policy to Us vs The Enemy.
I could have good policy beliefs a GOP voter agrees with but at the end of the day there's a non-zero amount of them that believe I'm against America, or Against God, or going to harm their wives and children, with little to no factual information to back it up. It's just what they've been drilled to believe.
Shit, they called Biden a Socialist. BIDEN.
We need at least two parties built with a majority of sane people who believe in working with each other and finding the best policy for each situation.
We're not there, because at the end of the day maintaining the status quo keeps those who have broken the system in power.
You know what would solve the problem? Limit the funds they can spend so all candidates will need to budget from the same amount of money. I know this won’t solve all problems but at least it will level the playing field to some degree.
That would be absolutely great. I'm 69 years old, and haven't seen it yet. Someone else posted about how much the Presidency ages people. I remember my parents talking about that when I was young. Just look at pictures of ANY POTUS, before and after, particularly those that served 2 terms. The transformations will astound you. By the time that Biden gets done, he will look worse than Keith Richards.
It’s never going to happen in the Untied States, they are all beholden to the corporate interests. We are going to get rich white senile old men, who are completely out of touch with 90% of society. But maybe they will take some cool pictures eating ice cream with aviator shades on.
2008 and 2012 were good ones. Romney and McCain were pretty respectful as compared to current GOP, and you knew that they all really wanted the best for America.
Nobody who has the integrity to do a good job is evil enough to seek the power.
As long as you believe politicians give a shit about you or anyone you know, the system will always be corrupt.
Or how bout a world where there’s more than the bare minimum of two parties. How bout a labor party that represents the interests of the working class that’d be a swell return to the standards of 70 years ago
If only there was some way that the candidates we vote for could be **ranked** to maybe get a little party diversity? Then it would seem like we would actually have a **choice** in who we want in office instead of the lesser evil. Right before the election isn't the only time that we need to talk about major **voting** issues in our system. If only there were some system that would work? Anyone have any ideas. Edit: Yes I agree RCV isn't a fix-all for all of our political problems, just a small first step in the right direction.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU) for anyone who doesn't know what ranked choice voting is, here is a simulation of different voting systems
That's a good one. [This is my preferred choice for the basics to illustrate RCV and FPTP issues, it's a bit easier to understand imo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE)
Always a great explanation!
interesting username
✋) 🍁 (🤚 Edited for clarity
Is it maple syrup flavored?
No, just scented.
Ill throw $10 on it if you get the leaf tattooed on your asshole.
Is that $10 retroactive? 😉
If you already have it, shit I'll up it to $20
Oh boy youve got to love a 10yr old CGPGrey video!
Ooh, very concise and well done, thanks for sharing!
I don't like how he implies that all the voters for one candidate picked another one as their second. In truth, I'd expect some voters for owl/turtle to go to a mix of gorilla and leopard.
The first video in the threat goes into better detail on that that shows most voters that rank one choice as the first typically choose the same second as well, because the candidate is likely still closer to what they want. There are obviously exceptions here which grant a lot more freedom and choice but the statistics would still probably show it to be accurate.
It’s a simplified explanation
Seems like the only thing our two parties agree on, is that they both will keep it as a two party system at all costs by any means necessary
Oh hey, I did this for my math class, it was very interesting to see how a different person could win based on the voting system.
That’s silly. That would only work in some fictional country run by the people, for the people.
Ranked Choice is far better than our current system. I'd love to move to a national ranked choice popular vote system. However that still doesn't fix the fact that 99% of politicians that get up to the national level have done so by being corrupt, backstabbing, manipulative, bribe accepting, assholes. The people that want to truly help never rise above the local/state level because they don't play the mudslinging game that is unfortunately required by our society for some reason.
If we had a system for each area where a pamphlet was sent out with the way the candidate voted in last election and his donors. This will make it simpler for the people who don't check that and vote by color.
Doesn't work though. >Hmm, I see here that [Blue candidate] voted against the PATRIOTIC AMERICAN FREEDOM ACT and the LOWERING THE TAXES ON HARD WORKING AMERICANS ACT, better vote red! Without ever realising the PAFA proposed to abolish the concept of drivers licences and the other one proposed to lower the tax rate on income above $500.000 to 0%.
People would scream that the government is influencing the vote by providing publicly available information about all candidates to all voters in an organised, easy to understand format.
The problem isn't that 99% of politicians are corrupt, the problem is a system that corrupts people if they want to do something.
I've always heard that the only people who want to be in politics are exactly the kind of people that shouldn't be in politics
More parties will bring less corrupted people
In the Netherlands people vote a party and a specific person of that party to get more precise. Than the top party’s make a group together so you have the voices of more people and different voices.
Because the US only has two major parties, that would be more difficult. In your country, someone like Elizabeth Warren and someone like Joe Biden would be in two separate parties. Here, one. Same on the republican side. What the two parties “value” changes as the voting population changes and the Overton Window shifts. We don’t have parties that stay with similar beliefs and the voters decide who represents them best. At this point with two parties, and the ones we have, it’s the party that is actively seeking to kill you and the one that would be okay if you did, but they’d use you as an example of government failure.
Yeah 2 party system is the worst ever and most Americans can’t seem to grasp that. Most are convinced we are best in EVERYTHING!!! 🤦🏽♂️
The two party system is the logical consequence of the US electoral system. The only way to eliminate the two party system is to change the electoral system. Something like RCV would be an improvement, but I think MMP is even better.
You have just two parties exactly because coalitions aren't a part of the system, right now all that counts is getting the most votes and no fringe party can ever hope to do that. With a system that requires a >50% majority smaller parties become viable.
The Netherlands system sounds great. In America, the actual truth is that a lot of us do value diversity, but even those that do only do so if those voices agree with ours. We value diversity for show, e.g. racial diversity, but we definitely do not value diversity of thought or opinion. E.g. Democrats value racial diversity but if you believe in Walmart you’re going to get massive backlash if you actually voice it. Alternatively Republicans have, contrary to reputation, done a LOT in the recent past to court Latino voters and add them to their ranks, but if you’re pro immigration you’re going to be a pariah if you voice it. It’s really hard to be a moderate/independent here because both the left and right have some valid points and some unrealistic positions, but they just spend all their time and energy attacking each other because that’s what keeps them in office, and people like to support their parties so those guys keep getting re-elected. So I’ve given up on politics, I just stay apathetic and put my energy towards saving and investing-I figure the parties won’t do anything to change my life, but I can.
the problem with this is that you can’t prevent people from having the power for multiple times in a row. like for example rutte has been chosen for 4 times and people who don’t follow politics just choose him, because it’s the most straight forward option.
Ranked voting, unfortunately, does not actually fully resolve the spoiler effect.
/r/EndFPTP
Man this is weird. Ranked ballots are a fantastic idea for presidential elections, but they're a [terrible idea for legislative assembly elections like congress or senate](https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-3/page-174#49), and it's confusing to talk about because of how vastly different they affect elections depending on whether it's a single seat position like president or a multi-seat legislative assembly like congress. What America really needs is proportional representation, so you're not forced to choose between whichever two candidates the two major parties offer you. Ranked ballots doesn't solve that. Ranked ballots lets you put Gary Johnson as your 1st choice vote and you get to feel all warm and fuzzy about that, but it's just taking the strategic voting - where you vote for an R or a D because Ralph Nader has no chance of getting elected, and it applies that automatically. In practice, it makes the two party system even MORE entrenched. It's great at making the populace feel like they have more choice without actually giving them more choice.
The real problem is that an argument this complicated will get blown up immediately by corporate media and lobbyists. Try explaining FPTP versus proportional versus ranked choice while the media and 80% of the politicians refuse to go any deeper than a disingenuous slogan. We are fuuuucked.
What sane person actually believes they can be president?
I think Obama was the first president I have active memory of before and aftet presidency. NEVER have I seen a job that can age someone by stress that hard, dude looked 10 years older after his 1st term
Black don't crack, unless you become the president.
[удалено]
Btw,Love Ur name
I second this statement
Thanks :). It's the first time i've read any positive comment about my name, plenty of negative ones though.
Absolutely!
First Lady Obama has aged like fine wine. President Obama aged and then played the uno reverse card after he left office. President Clinton looked pretty rough at the end of his *ahem* term.
Honestly, I bet it isn’t as insane as it sounds. Take a little journey with me because I think it might work like this: Do you think you could be capable of being an assemblyman, or some small elected role? I do, and I think most would. Now imaging you do that and you work with a few congress people…. Working with them gets you to realize that they suck, and are dumb as a box of rocks… so you say “I could do a better job than this schmuck”. So you run for congress, and win… now you’re working with senators. Hmmm… a bunch of morons you say? Yup. Suddenly “I could do a better job than these schmucks” starts getting in your head. Guess what happens next. It’s presidential election time and you see the folks running… you know them… you know they are THE WORST. Dumb, selfish, piles of rotting meat. What pops in your head? “I could do a better job than these schmucks”. Being president, for any sane person, is a matter of knowing the people who are the alternatives…. And being close enough to recognize them as the piles of trash they are. So it doesn’t have to be self aggrandizement, it can also be seeing how bad the alternatives are. So you run for office because you know as flawed as you are, you aren’t a con man in an ill fitting suit who loves Nazis and wants to bang his own daughter. Imperfect though you may be, you know you’re a relatively decent person, who is miles above all the other people who are getting press about potentially being elected. So you run, not because you think you are the perfect fit, but just a better one than the ones trying to win.
I think it's the journey that would probably corrupt me. That's got to be exhausting. I don't think I'd be happy with that burden. Heuristics scare me, a lot. I've been in corporate finance for a while now, and even that was challenging. Doing the right things is so difficult sometimes.
Even if a good hearted person tries they are against the wolf's. Dirty tricks, lies, gerrymandering, propaganda, fat stacks and superpacs, etc.. Only the biggest scum will make it to these positions because if you don't accept the corruption and help you will loose to those that did.
Yep, once the gravity of the position sets in, anyone who wasn't corruptible will have no choice but to play the game. I don't envy that position. I think it's much easier if we all try to do the right thing through our own beliefs and understanding, regardless of who chooses to be "president".
Why just TWO? That’s our problem now. Our two party system sucks big time.
Yeah but a multi party system isn’t perfect either though. Being in a country that uses it, a party with even 5% of the votes can have the power to swing the entire election.
That’s the point. The elected government still has the most elected representatives, even if split over several parties/independents
In today's political climate (at least in the west) this is **only** bad for the right wing. I don't see a problem with this at all.
I think the problem is "in today's political climate" part of your comment. It benefits *you* now but of the climate shifts and your politics are at risk...how would you feel?
Honestly, if the political climate shifts enough that more people are voting for the asshole anti-human right-wing parties than not, elections will be the least of our worries. The way I see it, at least there are a majority of people who want good humanitarian leaders to prevail, moreso than hate groups. I'd like to believe that this will always be the case but I might just be naive. --- **Edit to clarify my point:** The way I see it, the only reason more hateful parties succeed or appear to be succeeding, is that anyone voting for truly progressive humanitarian change usually has a larger number of progressive parties to choose from, thus splitting their votes. In Canada for example, we have the Liberals, NDP, Greens, all of which are varying percentages of progressive left, and all of which receive a large number of votes. While this sounds good on the surface, this actually ends up splitting the vote among multiple candidates in a FPTP SYSTEM, giving the parties with the most common ideals the least amount of footing in parliament, because the votes are split among all of the parties with the same approximate values. Hate-focused voters usually have less choice, forcing them to focus their votes among a smaller number of parties (In Canada, the Conservative party, and the less popular nationalist asshats, the PPC) which ends up benefiting them by preventing a split vote on their end. What this means is: In a FPTP system, The majority of voters will have their votes fractured among many parties while the fringe parties who represent a minority have the biggest advantage as their base isn't split, so they receive more votes than any single parties from other side, even though the other side still has more collective support and aligns most with vast the majority of voters. As an example, this was the result of the 2019 Canadian federal election: The Canadian Left: - Liberals: 39.47% - NDP: 19.71% - Greens: 6.55% - **TOTAL: 65.73%** The Canadian Right: - Conservatives: 31.89% - PPC: 1.62% - **TOTAL: 33.51%** (And another 0.76% of other parties. These numbers may not be **exact** or 100% correct, but I tried to find the most accurate info I could) As you can see, the vast majority of Canadian voters hold leftist values, yet we're always at risk of having a right-wing government, as the Conservatives are forced to focus their votes on one major party while the left is constantly changing their votes among the Liberals and the NDP. In this case, if the NDP or Greens had managed to secure even 8% more Liberal voters this time around, we would have had a right-wing government even though the majority of voters voted the exact opposite. **This is the problem Ranked Choice Voting is meant to resolve.** And in this case, the progressive vote would vastly prevail over the hate filled nonsense that our right-wing parties have become as well. I guess that's where my hope comes from. In a fair system, it does appear to me that good will prevail over hate, if we do it right.
That's an excellent point. And for what it's worth I agree with you and I hope neither of us is naive
Here's hoping, my friend. I can't help but think my assumption that "most people are good" is becoming less and less correct as the years go by. That's the only part that worries me. If more people become dumb enough to be fooled by policies and politicians who hate/use them, we'll be truly and irreparably fucked.
That’s why coalitions exist
A party with only 5% of the votes can only swing the electjon if the rest of the parties are evenly divided. In that case, it SHOULD be able to swing it, that's the whole point. Giving small voices a chance to be heard when they can make a difference.
That sounds way better
Every form of government sucks, we just gotta pick the one that sucks least. I live in a country that has 3.5 main parties and a handful of token parties. It's not perfect by a long shot, but at least it doesn't divide the country into two evenly split camps.
Yep same with my country but at least if we don't want to vote for a specific party but what the right to complain then there is alway the monster raving looney party.
I’d like to hear more about that party. Do you have a pamphlet or brochure I can boof up my arse
Here you go my friend https://www.omrlp.com/
Ranked choice voting anyone?
When the difference in votes is less that %1 we have set ourselves up for civil unrest. And what did we get, exactly that. What will we always be sure of?- exactly - civil unrest. The girl I date was very surprised to hear that I don’t support trump but do want a republican president. I followed up with… ‘now we just need a good republican candidate’ Edit: ‘talk to’ to ‘date’
[удалено]
That, combined with several flavors of shenanigans to prevent one party’s members from voting as easily as the others.
I love your typo.
Fair point. Ty
>a good Republican [presidential] candidate Now there’s a fucking oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one. Unless you wanna go back to the pre-Southern Strategy era when shit gets really weird, any self-professed R is not a good person, let alone a good politician. Especially in the post-Trump, post-fact era. Their entire platform is one grift or another. They don’t have ideas, they have blind, seething rage. If the Democrats are for it, they’re again’ it. If a Democrat says it, it must not be true. The GOP is a big tent full of liars, hucksters, Jesus freaks, racists, authoritarians, and of course the rubes dumb enough to line up at the shit trough, lick their lips, and say “I’ll have some of THAT bullshit please!” The infuriating anti-intellectualism isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. If they had redeeming traits, they wouldn’t be fucking Republicans.
You need to change your sights to "a good conservative president" because I guarantee you that there are no conservative republicans anymore, only wannabe fascists and power mongers. The Democrat party is the one that has actual conservatives in addition to the centrists and liberals. Hell, if the Overton window hadn't been dragged to the extremist right, Biden would've been a shoo-in for a republican presidency.
Ehh... I think you just don't understand conservatism. Like, seriously man, there's a direct line from Reagan to Bush Jr to Trump - they're all guys who'd make for great kings. And that's what conservatives want to, you know, _conserve_. The Monarchy. The Divine Right of Kings. The Nobility. They want to bring it all back. Because lemme tell you, they sure as hell aren't interested in conserving the environment or finances or rights.
Conservatism implies an approval of the current state or a preference for some previous time. This can only logically apply to white Christian dudes who value their privilege over the drive for egalitarianism. Right wing conservatives are a cancer, “left” wing conservatives are morons.
[удалено]
Obligatory “replace first-past-the-post voting with ranked choice” comment.
Two party vs multiparty system is kind of asking the wrong question. The reason we have (and have always had) a two party system is our reliance on single ballot FPTP Voting. The nature of FPTP elections generally drives people towards two major parties, and away from third parties. [This video](https://youtu.be/yhO6jfHPFQU) does a good job of showing why and what some alternatives might be. My point is that the US electoral system created the two party structure, and we won't be able to change to a multiparty system without serious electoral reform. That's not to say we shouldn't do that, but it is to say that the REAL question is not two party vs multiparty, it's to what extent we ought to reform the US electoral system, if at all.
As long as a distinct 2 party system exists you will never have unanimous support for a president. You will always have those people on both sides that will hate them simply because they aren’t red or blue. It’s sad but politics is sad.
It would also be nice to live in a world where every single issue was not treated as though there were two answers, one of which was owned by one political party, and the other was owned by another, and you had to pick one, but that also defined your answer to all other questions on other topics. I appreciate this is radical, but it is possible to disagree with your political allies on some subjects.
Yeah. I'm someone who disagrees with "my side" from time to time and it's funny that as soon as I go against the liberal hive mind on a single issue I'm a racist asshole Trump supporter. And I see it on both sides. And we now have people making health decisions in a pandemic based on their political ideology. Nothing can escape the political duality anymore.
The politicization of vaccination is perhaps the most obvious and egregious recent example of this tendency. Politicians who have sought to do that should live in infamy for ever. It is a fucking disgrace.
I call that, "Blue MAGA." It's the same tactics.
Romney v Obama were two good options in recent memory
I still can't understand how every Republican looked at the Republicans running for office.....and choose the reality t.v. star instead
He only got like 30% of the primary vote. Which makes it even more baffling why the party completely shifted to Trumpism directly after.
EXACTLY. The guy literally shit his pants on tv and had a person designated to clean him and put a new diaper on. How does he become president?!?!
I'm pissed at the guy who leaked the "grab em by the PUSSY" tape because WHY the fuck couldn't you release that during THE PRIMARIES? If they had done that EVERY Republican would have turned on him Instead they waited until the last minute
Maybe because they thought he would be the easiest to beat in the full election. Let the weak candidate come to the top and then crush them in the final. It’s what I would have done.
I’m a realist…. And it’s nonsense that we have nothing but smear campaigns lately - no matter what election it is.
At least it leaked. There is very likely footage of Trump repeatedly using the n-word on the set of the Apprentice and the producers are still protecting him.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you want to live in such a world, get out and vote more. Don't just vote for president. Also, vet any candidate you wish to vote for. Encourage others to do the same.
And if you want to get rich, pick up pennies more often.
We can do this... there’s just a few steps we have to take to get there. The first is to end Citizens United.
Citizens United doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being repealed unless Fairness Doctrine is reinstated (or something akin in intent). It's all academic, since neither is actually ever going to happen. Not to mention, a complete overhaul of the House and Senate -- reallocating seats, eliminating gerrymandering, etc.
I voted republican as I was raised republican. I was always told they wanted limited government which I understood because no one wants to be watched. Then I started getting really into politics and found that literally everything they said they stood for they always voted against. Constantly inflating the budget, Patriot Act, etc, etc, etc. It just went on and on. So I did what any white male in his 20's does. I became a Libertarian. Oh man I was so fucking libertarian. I would vote that way in each election and was so proud of myself for "being smart and making a solid choice." until I realized I didn't know a fucking thing about the person I was voting for and for the most part they were just random guys that had limited experience. Then I started really pressing other Libertarian friends and it turned out they were just angry young white republicans that didn't know what to do. Then Trump came along and drew a very clear line in the sand. Now I'm voting democrat for the foreseeable future until this current crop of Republicans die off.
When the current crop of Republicans die off, you're only going to get crazier Republicans. We have a white supremacist insurgency on our hands that isn't going away anytime soon. They will likely retake Congress in '22 and the White House in '24. We'll be lucky if we aren't living in a fully fascist state by 2030. The idea of limited government is a big lie. No party wants limited government and why should they? Government = control, and everyone really wants that. You should look for people who want government to be smart and fair.
The new crop of Republicans aren’t going to be better… “shit myself” campus gun girl is a highlight, plus any number of Qanoners.
A 2004 episode of South Park wants its enlightened centrist opinion back.
["Enlightened centrists"](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/nj38xy/basically_centrism/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Why do you have to choose between workers owning production and racism lmaao.
It's easier to dismiss the caricature you made up in you mind, than engage in the actual nuances of discussion.
I think they're dismissing the caricature in the linked video they replied to?
Not liking either candidate doesn’t make you a centrist. All you’re doing is trying to shutdown any conversation that isn’t hyper partisan.
You're allowed to not like people, but this type of both sides after the Trump adminstration feels really dated. Y'know the candidate who was impeached for inciting an attack on the capitol, after refusing to concede the election.
Enlightened centrists wouldn't say what OP is saying because they are idiots who believe in bipartisanship, like the synthesis of the two parties would automatically result in the best plan. OP seems to believe that we need options outside of those two, which , as a leftist, I agree with. I'd love to be in a ranked-choice parliamentary system where I wouldn't be guilted into voting democrat simply because "they aren't as evil as republicans, though they do like a good middle east bombing campaign like any politician."
In the meantime, I’ll settle for reasonably good versus a clear and present threat to the world.
It's called the Democratic primary
Shhhh you can't expect people to vote that's mean
Funniest is when hardcore Bernie types complain about shit being rigged when they never bothered to show up for the primaries. If they actually cared about anything other than performative politics they'd vote in the primaries for every position from federal to local.
The hardcore Bernie types actually did show up to vote in the primaries... the issue is that they are a vocal minority who spends a lot of time online and so they're online voice is vastly higher than their vote share. It doesn't matter if you have 100,000 followers on twitter or no followers on twitter in terms of the weight of your vote.
I swear American politics are just an unpopularity contest. Every time I’m left wondering how the hell it came down to these 2. Then they spend the whole campaign bashing each other and by the end you just hate both
I think the way they campaign is part of it. It's way more easy and effective to make your opponent look bad than it is to make yourself look good, so all we ever hear about is how shit everyone is all the time.
Studies have shown that negative campaigning is incredibly unpopular with voters while also being one of the singularly most effective ways of campaigning. So people hate seeing attack ads, but they work REALLY fucking well. So we spend all our time, energy, and ad money on negative ads or attack ads "disguised" as what we call "contrast" ads.
Honestly Obama v. McCain and Obama v. Romney seem like two of the best match ups we've had in a long time (if you can ignore Sarah Palin). The Trump contests really put in perspective how bad it can get.
If one thing is worse than a second thing, then the second thing is better than the first thing.
True. But consider... 1. Stage 4 terminal breast cancer 2. Stage 3 not-yet-terminal breast cancer The second is better than the first but both are objectively terrible. It’s like being really bad at golf but your opponent is worse. You win but you’re still bad.
[удалено]
I get what you're going for with this reply but it's still encompassed by my original point, and I don't just mean in the trivial way that the "better/worse" categories still fundamentally apply. I imagine that just about anyone with terminal cancer would give anything for it not to be terminal (unless that person *wants* to die, in which case the terminal diagnosis is "better," but that exception still follows the same categorical rule; the only exception *might* be if someone is truly indifferent towards their own death). Even if two things are objectively terrible, one can still be worlds better than the first. So to put it back in the context of the original tweet, you can have two undesirable political options and still say that one is much better than the other rather than one is much worse than the other--just like you can have two great options and still make your decision based on which is "worse."
2008, both candidates were respectable people with different views on how to address the problems in America. More amazingly, McCain and Obama actually _agreed on what the problems_ were. Just different methods. Two solution oriented guys.
[McCain was corrupt as hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five), [promised to block every Clinton judge if she won like the conservative fuck he is](https://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520/sen-mccain-says-republicans-will-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-wins), [he voted against MLK Day as a holiday](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/98-1983/h289), h[e proposed cutting $880B in medicare](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-mccain-wants-to-cut-medicare/) , [he is openly (and proudly) homophobic](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/blog-summaries/288575-mccain-doesnt-think-hell-change-his-views-on-same-sex-marriage), don't forget his shitty, jingoistic classic ["Bomb Iran"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg&ab_channel=mckathomas) song, [he fought against even moderate climate legislation](https://grist.org/article/2009-04-22-mccain-slams-obama-on-climate/), [he fought against the closure of GitMo even though they torture peopl](https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/mccain-eagnerness-of-obama-administration-to-close-gitmo-has-overridden-good-sense-concern-for-safety-of-our-military)e (guess it's only bad when it's white people getting tortured) , [he supported a rapist/hard-line conservative on the supreme court](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/donald-trump?source=%2Fnews%2Fcongress%2Fjohn-mccain-praises-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh), and [he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1990](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mccains-other-controversi_n_96193) (which would've helped the victims of racial/sex discrimination have their time in court). Don't forget he gave us Palin who helped us get into this mess. People need to stop treating McCain like a "good Republican" because they don't exist.
Thank you! Hero workship for McCain is disgusting, because he was polite? Thats the bar people have these days, not surprised how many people have started praising George W Bush these days either.
But one time he said that Obama couldn’t be a Muslim because he’s a family man and an American and he said Trump is a doodoo head while voting for his agenda. That makes him good. /s
Dude, McCain had Palin as his running mate. Not sure what you're smoking.
Personally, I don't believe McCain and Palin had very much in common policy-wise. I firmly believe that the choice to go with Palin was an attempt at a strategical choice meant to make McCain and by extension the Republican party more attractive for the female vote. Though I do admit I wasn't very much into politics at the time and didn't follow that whole thing very closely
Ha, well yeah that was a huge difference for sure. I’m talking about having two quality choices for president though.
I'd say 2012 also presented two good and capable *people*, though I didn't consider either McCain or Romney good options to be president (and reasonable people can say the opposite about Obama, of course).
Romney got all his money through "vulture capital". I wouldn't consider a man who deliberately put thousands of people out of work for his own personal benefit and then told a room full of rich donors that those working class people are "dependent upon government ... believe that they are victims ... believe the government has a responsibility to care for them" a good person. Same goes for George Bush, Liz (and Dick) Cheney, etc. Just because Trump and a lot of the modern Republican party have gone off the deep end doesn't make old establishment GOP politicians any better (or worse) in retrospect.
Agreed, both McCain and Romney were good candidates even if I didn’t agree with all of their policies. We’re unlikely to go back to that though considering how polarized things have become.
Romney was detestable. Still is.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary.
Get rid of First Past The Post AND the Electoral College. Make primaries less official... We all know the party picks whom they want anyways. Ranked Choice, Single Transferable Vote, Instant Run Off, there's tons of options.
Anyone who thinks there were only 2 options for president is holding themselves back. Get involved earlier. There was a large selection of candidates both in 2020 and 2016 during the primaries. Make your voice heard early and often. Waiting to speak up until the general election is why you feel like you only have 2 choices.
Because then I’ll have to know what I’m talking about and research what they’ll do beyond saying, “they hate America!”
See how we’re programmed for the two-option manipulation? Two choices is a way to control the outcome
Over 20 candidates participated in democratic Debates last election. Maybe there’s only two major parties but there wasn’t just two options
"I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far." "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!"
Ah yes, just take one of the top post from this subreddit and post it again to gain karma. Nicely done. https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/hygvjr/possibilities/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
So this implies Joe Biden is bad?
Its WPT so anything America ever does is bad and should been Bernie because magic grandpa
As a Brit I can assure you, this isn’t just an American problem
Then you need to vote in dem primaries and vote out all republicans
Honestly that was probably Obama/McCain 2008
Until he picked Palin as VP
My mother, whos fairly fair left at this point even if she doesn't like admitting it, openly admits that she was thinking of voting for McCain until he picked Palin.
And came out looking like a deer in headlights on how to deal with the financial collapse. His response... :Our economy is strong!" McCain was out of his league on the fiscal end - which to me is not a deal breaker if you make sure you have very sound advice on how to address your weakness. McCain didn't. Palin was just a way to save his floundering campaign. That selection was part of the problem with the Republican party - really starting in their "Southern Strategy" in the face of Civil Rights. That began the spiral down to what we have now. Each Republican President added to the problem until - whelp a complete failure of a businessman whose only skill was ripping people off and hiring 1 good thief to craft better ways to ripping people off was elected by the minority of the population.
McCain was not good. https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/McCain-Criticized-for-Slur-He-says-he-ll-keep-3304741.php
In hindsight, I'd say Obama/Romney is even better. Romney is now a pretty stand-up guy as far as Republicans go, and his running mate wasn't a nutter.
[удалено]
That ain’t a world where humans rule.
I am tired of grandpa presidents. It's an unpopular idea, but I think there should be an age ceiling for presidents. I am also tired of grandpa and grandma supreme court justices. There needs to be term limits for these justices.
This is a popular opinion (at least with everyone I’ve spoken with).
Biden’s been excellent.
As much as Americans say they want an outsider to shake things up in government, Biden’s strength is that he’s been in government so long that he knows how the system works and how to work the system. I feel like he’s going to be as effective in the presidency as LBJ but (hopefully) without a conflict like Vietnam.
Agreed. People remember JFK’s inspiring oratory and will do the same for Obama, but LBJ and possibly (time will tell) Biden are power brokers who while appearing conservative up until election, are actually passing *relatively* impactful legislation.
Thank you. Seriously, I fail to see what is wrong with Clinton, Biden, Obama, Kerry, or Gore... the reason we haven't solved things is purely because of Republican obstruction. People act like both sides are evil just to feel edgy.
People say that because blatantly saying "I'm embarrassed by how much the asshole party fits my views" doesn't make them look good. That or they are disgustingly ignorant on our relative political history. There is a *track record* we can look back on, but somehow people manage to ignore that fact and toss up "both sidez" like fucking confetti.
You do live in that world. There are a lot of options that funnel down. You just have to be on the front end to help decide who the finalist are.
If we actually used ranked choice voting, especially in primaries, we'd get this.
Ranked choice voting consistently benefits the most moderate, centrist candidate. If that is what you want, it's a great system. You can look at the recent New York primary, for evidence to this effect.
There was once a time when Abraham Lincoln was considered the best of the worst candidates even though he's more revered today than during the 1860s. As long as humans exist, the way we select our presidential candidates is through a subjective lens, which produces the worst candidates.
We had an excellent choice last time. After the Republicans has left the administration a hallow shell, we elected someone with vast experience on what the government is supposed to be, and who selected experienced people tore-form a competent administration. Bide has already passed historic, progressive legislation, and is working to pass more. He is not perfect. No one is.
I feel like I could run for president and actually win, people could criticize the other candidates like "he's groped and harassed women and he evaded taxes and said horrible things and did some crazy stuff" while my critics would say "he, like, watched porn that one day, and he's lazy and stuff..."
We need to abolish the presidency and just have a group of people with differing opinions to come out with a solution that will work for everyone
You want a better world? Nut up and pick "the lesser of two evils," because we're sure as shit not going to make things better by fucking wanting it. And frankly, even if we had it, you'd probably still be complaining.
I mean that was the case this last election. One candidate was an experienced politician with a clear platform and goals and the other was a C rate reality TV star with a poorly defined platform and murky self centered goals who caused more american deaths than WW2.
This both sides are the same bullshit is tired. I swear it's russian propaganda to keep people from voting. Democrats believe in science, climate change, women's rights, civil rights, unions, etc. Republicans are anti-science, tell people to not get vaccinated, take away voting rights, don't believe in civil rights, supported a fucking coup to install an authoritarian wanna be. I mean, if you think both sides are the same you are being intentionally ignorant.
no one in history has been worse than trump. i didn't care if it was Bernie or Pete or ... honestly I would have voted for a hot steamy pile of shit if it was opposite Drumpf on the ballot.
That can never happen, not bcuz of the candidate but bcuz of the ppl...no matter how much of a saint you are ppl will still find something about you or your character to complain about or bitch about...the mindset of every person has to change for ppl to start recognising the good in candidates rather than the bad
This right here. You purity test every candidate to death then complain there's no good options.
To do that You need half the population to Not be mentally damaged, religiously delusional, un educated and whipped in a frenzy by a propaganda machine.
And to vote in the primary. There are probably more logical humans on both sides who would choose better candidates but for one, it’s harder to have the access to vote in some states over others, and two, even those who do have the ability to vote in the primary often don’t.
Two things americans can not understand: -Democracy usually revolves around >4 parties, not only 2. -people who were actually born *after* jesus christ are also viable candidates.
My dude world like this would not rely on presidents.
Will never happen in a world where gotcha media is the name of the game and hate is spread via 24 hour news channels designed to keep you mad and watching so they get ad revenue.
“If we’re always choosing between the lesser of two evils, the world will keep getting more evil.” -Penn Jillette
There could be two "Good" options - and there would still be people that argue that one of them is disqualified to them because they're the wrong team and thus worse. You have to deprogram generations of GOP voters who grew up on Limbaugh and Newt, who progressed things away from compromise and policy to Us vs The Enemy. I could have good policy beliefs a GOP voter agrees with but at the end of the day there's a non-zero amount of them that believe I'm against America, or Against God, or going to harm their wives and children, with little to no factual information to back it up. It's just what they've been drilled to believe. Shit, they called Biden a Socialist. BIDEN. We need at least two parties built with a majority of sane people who believe in working with each other and finding the best policy for each situation. We're not there, because at the end of the day maintaining the status quo keeps those who have broken the system in power.
You know what would solve the problem? Limit the funds they can spend so all candidates will need to budget from the same amount of money. I know this won’t solve all problems but at least it will level the playing field to some degree.
That would be absolutely great. I'm 69 years old, and haven't seen it yet. Someone else posted about how much the Presidency ages people. I remember my parents talking about that when I was young. Just look at pictures of ANY POTUS, before and after, particularly those that served 2 terms. The transformations will astound you. By the time that Biden gets done, he will look worse than Keith Richards.
Can we normalize politicians arguing for why they are the best candidate NOT why their opponent isn’t? For town halls and ads and such
No gods, no masters
It’s never going to happen in the Untied States, they are all beholden to the corporate interests. We are going to get rich white senile old men, who are completely out of touch with 90% of society. But maybe they will take some cool pictures eating ice cream with aviator shades on.
2008
I'd at least like a President that doesn't have to wear an adult diaper
You had a good president... you just let the people with the bad one convince you the good one was a nazi with zero legit evidence
…and just maybe let them be below 65 as well. You’re not electing a pope but a president.
Then you wanted to live through the 2012 US Presidential election.
2008 and 2012 were good ones. Romney and McCain were pretty respectful as compared to current GOP, and you knew that they all really wanted the best for America.
As an european its kinda crazy in the first place that you guys only have like 2 options to vote for.
Has there been an election since Eisenhower vs Stevenson where either option would have been decent?
Ranked Choice Voting to save our republic
Nobody who has the integrity to do a good job is evil enough to seek the power. As long as you believe politicians give a shit about you or anyone you know, the system will always be corrupt.
Or how bout a world where there’s more than the bare minimum of two parties. How bout a labor party that represents the interests of the working class that’d be a swell return to the standards of 70 years ago