You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
6 points
*

democracy enjoyers when people vote for parties that best represent their interests: 😡😡😡😡😡😡

permalink
report
reply
2 points

No you don’t understand you have to vote the genocidal capitalist pig

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

FPTP systems can hardly be called democracy. Like it or not, the spoiler effect is the problem here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

What interests does Jill Stein actually represent for the people? The green party has never held a local office and she only ever pops up during the election for fundraising. If the green party actually did anything aside from campaigning for the presidency, no one would have this criticism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

off the top of my head, she’s the only one calling for a full arms embargo of Israel, and also the only one pushing for medicare for all. she has also consistently criticized trump and biden’s immigration policies. all of this aligns with my interests, and so she is who I will most likely vote for.

The green party has never held a local office

this is wrong. As of the November 7, 2023 elections, at least 142 Greens hold elected office. I found this with 2 seconds of googling.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

As of 2023, no nominee of the Green Party has been elected to office in the federal government.

Yeah, they’re real committed. 23 years and they haven’t even gotten a single congressman elected.

142 local elected officials out of literally tens of thousands across the country. But Jill Stein manages to pop up every 4 years to run for president. She becomes especially loud in the years when the elections look relatively close. And, like her predecessor Ralph Nader, she’s got environmental ideas (most of which have been adopted by the Democratic party) but the only other thoughts on policy are criticism of the Democrats with no actual agendas or ideas for fixing things as president. She says “stop selling arms to Israel!”. Ok, sure. How does the democratic presidential candidate say they are gonna do that without pissing of AIPAC and having them throw every dime at their disposal to get Trump elected instead? Hell, she doesn’t even engage with Republicans. Just democrats for some reason. I wonder why that is… Oh, yeah. Cause she’s there to spoil the election. That is her only purpose. Saying anything else is disingenuous.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

If intent matters and results don’t, I’ll write in my favorite fictional candidate!

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

One might argue that a two-party system (with the electoral college the way it is) is not a democracy

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I would argue that. FPTP, you either vote tactically or the vote doesn’t count towards the final results. That’s not real democracy to me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

your not voting tactically because your vote counts equally as much either way. There’s nothing “tactical” about voting for people who push policies one doesn’t support.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

the system devised by wealthy landowners to keep power out of the hands of common people isn’t actually a democracy? I’m shocked. Shocked, I say!

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

So you admit the average voter needs to accept they aren’t in a functional democracy and do damage control until the revolution, cool.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.9K

    Posts

  • 121K

    Comments