Who here hype for the opportunity to once again choose between wealthfare queens and CIA agents, with the occasional badly written ballot measure?
Given Trump's predictably boring failure so far to live up to campaign promises and do anything Jeb wouldn't have, as well as Bernie's failure to purge Clintonites from the DNC, logjam from Trump in the presidency and DNC in the congress (but not the >2/3rds needed to impeach Pence into the presidency) truly seems like the best possible option.
...
If you guys are american I say you should one of these three:
Vote libertarian for the memes and to fuck up whoever you wish to fuck up.
Vote green for the memes and to fuck up whoever you wish to fuck up.
Or draw the biggest, most beautiful long soviet schlong on the voting paper.
Cut it out
Wait, what?
Third party votes are discounted. election results are usually decided long before election day by the parties and their wealthy benefactors.
There is no political solution to this mess, only a social one. Tell your friends. Give up on their system.
*laughs in leftcom*
Oh, that's unfortunate. Well at least I'm not american.
1) Tell all your democratic friends that your voting Green
2) Collect the Salt
3) Proft
I sure am hype to see the result of this year's NJ senate election, where they get to choose between the brazenly corrupt Democrat incumbent or the pharmaceutical executive who made money off of cancer patients.
Calling the US even a formal democracy is absurd anymore.
If the DSA is so entryist why won't they run on a GOP ticket in red states?
Yeah, like the GOP is going to fund candidates whose goal is openly to crash this plane with no survivors.
But they think the Dems will do the same? Am I missing something here?
Comptroller for Maryland. Anjali Phukan.
I didn't vote.
Is there anything about her anywhere besides Fedbook?
If you have capitalism in your country, you don't have a secure democracy.
I'm telling them I'm not voting anymore and they give me the shun-shun fingers. I tell them why and this one guy is just not listening. Deprogramming is so difficult.
Unironically me, because I'm running:
carltonheston.com
Seriously, if you live in GA's 6th congressional district, write me in. It's valid - I've been through all the red tape.
He's actually done a lot of shit. Saying "lol where's your wall?!!" is retarded shit - the dude is absolutely doing the Bush thing where he just slips in loads of authoritarian shit. Here's some shit Trump said he'd do and he did:
✓ Re-arming cops with military equipment
✓ Ending net neutrality
✓ Muslim ban (only slowly curbed back - later adding Venezuela and NK to give the appearance that it wasn't an unconstitutional religious ban)
✓ Pulling out of the Paris Climate agreement
Besides that, shit like pardoning Arpaio and Libby, sending the military to the US/Mexico border (to meet a group that hasn't even gotten near it yet), threatening the 14th amendment, SESTA, etc. make it clear that the guy's doing shit. Considering how incredibly unpopular he is, he's doing a lot of shit. The idea for a wall is such an ineffective batshit insane waste that pointing to its absence as a sign of his failure is almost completely meaningless when the actual outcome is still at least half way. This is another hardshoe president and another complacent, censorious congress (including Dems) and the impact is going to be lasting. Hillary would also be terrible, but the actual existing president of the United States is fucking awful.
Dems in the legislature keep Trump from passing more Republican pork, Trump in the presidency keep either from passing more generic pork or Clintonite military adventures, and hopefully by 2020 there will be a few more Berniecrat freshmen in purged seats.
If you win it, put a landlord's head on a pike, for me.
Yeah, thus the "anything Jeb or in the case of a lot of that, Clinton wouldn't have".
At minimum, I was really hoping for (especially with AMLO on the other side of the table) a killshot against NAFTA before this election, but that obviously isn't happening.
Oh. It never works out like that though. They fully cooperate on all the big stuff their donors want, especially the over inflated military budget.
It won't. There may be a new Democrat for president, and a few seats turn blue, but it will be nothing. Even if a few progressive crumbs get tossed our way, it's not what is needed. This isn't 1930 anymore.
You got it!
The TPP has at least been scrapped. Or delayed - I haven't followed it that well.
I don't know, I don't care.
Please tell me another hilarious joke you ridiculous shill.
The first of those is absolutely an authoritarian measure. The cops do not even pretend to not be an occupying army anymore.
Fuck off bootlicker.
Both are shit.
Both are talking as if it makes a difference if one side wins.
Both sides seem to be fapping to waves for some reason, so I made these maps to piss them both off.
Here is the "Blue Wave"
and the Red Wave.
For House I actually wanted to see how bad the gerrymandering was this year.
Vote for third party/independent to push for election reform. We shouldn't be stuck in an archaic first-past-the-post system with only two parties. Stop playing their games.
I don't even like Jill Stein but I voted her in 2016 and collected buckets of salt because Trump winning was all my fault and I should have checked my white male privilege instead of being such a shitlord. Only a misogynist would have found any fault with Queen Hillary!
Wasting votes for meme parties won't fix that problem. If you live in a state with a referendum process, however, there is a solution. Maine is the only state so far to do it, though.
Not a green here, but yeah it kind of will. At the very least, you should vote by policy and for third parties and independents when the outcome of the election is already basically known. Otherwise you're just wasting votes for the DNC, and the message they get is that everything they're doing is fine. Better to just vote for someone you actually agree with and try to build a bloc on it. Right now the DNC benefits from all the shit-tier electoral policy in that they feel no need to compete. Use it to strangle them instead until they're as desperate to improve the existing electoral process as Republicans are to disenfranchise people.
I guarantee you that at least a million people wasted their vote on Clinton in 2016 just to try and keep Trump out only to have her run off into the woods and blame Russia and misogyny when she lost with more votes than her opponent had. They won't even address the problem.
And they're going to find out the hard way in a few years that instant runoff voting sucks ass and isn't good enough to empower more than two political parties. Hopefully when they realize it they won't repeal the whole thing and return to plurality voting, as happened in Burlington, Vermont. Greens need to get that stupid shit out of their national platform already and replace it with an actually good alternative voting system.
Voting at all is a waste.
I'm torn between the awfulness of encouraging the DNC for becoming even worse since 2016, and giving the RNC the majority it needs for the legislature to continue pumping pork through at full speed under Trump. I think the friction (even if only for appearance' sake) between liberals in the legislature and Trump might give us the time necessary to get a meaningful purge of the DNC done before 2020.
Yeah, this is a definite problem. Worst of all it's a highly obscure, technical, and arcane one, but at least one that academia is pretty broadly agreed on.
Only if you'd otherwise spend that time actively building a base in the workplace, building independent community infrastructure, or arming against the state. Otherwise, no - voting is an opportunity to make a point and/or affect policy. Even within the existing framework, things can (and do) get worse.
Oh no. Tell me less
FairVote is completely full of shit, IRV is absolutely not better in these two aspects than Approval or Range (Score) Voting. Two-round plurality runoff is definitely not "highly resistant" to strategic voting either. I really can't figure out why they're so blatantly dishonest about this. I'm starting to become tempted to entertain the theory that FairVote is a false-flag project to trick people into adopting a voting system that won't actually deliver what they want. Who are their donors?
Look at this shit. The candidates and parties do it all the time in Australia's single-winner House elections that use IRV. IRV absolutely promotes strategic voting.
If your goal is to have more than two viable parties, demand proportional representation. Within single-winner methods, approval and range are more likely to do the trick than IRV, and they are easier to count as well.
Welllllllllllllll. First problem, the criteria are designed around analyzing ranked ballot data. You can add plurality voting to the mix because you can just imagine ranked ballots and everything except first place gets ignored in counting. Ranking is the mindset the person who made that is used to, and then range and approval are clumsily forced into the established framework.
One criterion is "resistance to strategic voting", a strategic vote would be one that is different from your honest expression, but what is an honest vote with range or approval? Suppose all individuals vote relative to some fixed standard of what is good or bad in their opinion, in this scenario these methods are 100 % resistant to the spoiler effect, and not "medium" as the chart has it. If people are well-informed about viability of candidates and vote strategically, it's extremely likely the Condorcet winner gets selected whenever there is one, so the entry for resistance to spoiler effect should be "high". Suppose voters basically think in rankings, not range, and when using range ballots put each candidate either near the maximum or minimum values. Everybody is under pressure to vote in such a way, but does it mean the method has "low" resistance to strategy? Look at what makes sense for the strategic voter with range: It is almost always a compression of your honest vote (have fun figuring out when it makes sense to actually invert here, it's an academic exercise with no real-world relevance). So, the strategic pressure is always there, but is isn't intense for the individual voter. Compare that with IRV and Condorcet, where people can often vote honestly; but that is only one aspect of resistance to strategic voting, in situations where you are under pressure to vote tactically in IRV or Condorcet, your tactically optimal vote can look very different from your honest opinion.
How Condorcet appears in the chart is also silly, a Condorcet method is just a method meeting the Condorcet criterion, so all that yes/no stuff just means that meeting the Condorcet criterion by itself neither implies pass or fail. If you replace "Condorcet methods" with either Schulze or Maximize Affirmed Majorities, you can replace all of the four yes/no entries in the Condorcet column with yes.
The only thing I fully agree with is the column for the shitty Borda method (more like Booooh!rda).
Why on Earth would we here be concerned with the legality of exploitation?
Wow, when you put it like that, voting DOES sound like a complete waste of time. Thanks friend!
Time could be better spent doing those things. So I'm saying do those. If you are, good, but if you're not and all you'd otherwise be doing is wage labor or Zig Forums'ing then voting is worth your time unless there is literally no policy that affects you and there are literally no third party/independents running. I'm aware this is a controversial position, but I believe that not voting accomplishes even less than voting.
That's fine, just don't fool yourself into thinking it's any kind of actually revolutionary activity, 'cause it isn't.
Better site?
rangevoting.org
it's like yeah you can not vote but that's exactly what the bourg want
WDHMBT?
Apparently a Green has a chance to win in California. youtube.com
Oh boy, I can't wait for the Greens to have mild electoral success and immediately abandon the vague, only somewhat worthwhile platform they have as of now.
Still won’t matter. Once the Greens shatter the two party system, than Communist Parties will be able to start gaining power. You only have to pull one brick from a building to get it to fall down.
Gonna be voting GOP nationally and libertarianl/socialist locally.
just vote the leftiest piece of shit and organize, not much else we can do in that matter
imagine thinking the green party is anything other than a meme group for people who think they're too cool to vote for a party that has a realistic chance of holding power
KELLY DID IT AGAIN
How many layers of irony is this?
You look like a hipster who does weed. Cut your hair and dress better.
Do you even know what strategic voting is? It means voting for someone you don't want just so the other guy won't win. How is that a problem with ranked choice?
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKK
I thought Tim was close? Why do people keep voting for that cheating bitch?
will the liberals finally learn?
Florida
Republicans are liberals.
Please don't pretend that the people on this board use the term liberal correctly
yeah almost like people don't like some asshole who came from nowhere and pushes insane seth rich shit
I love how people here actually think that any of the leftist third parties in this country aren't glorified religious cults, just as bad as the two main neoliberals, or mental asylum tankies
Instant Runoff Voting manifests a number of different scenarios where it's better for a voter to vote dishonestly than rank their choices in terms of honest preference. Here is just one of them:
rangevoting.org
It's not at all devoid of strategic voting like it may seem at first glance. In fact there was a famous theorem by Kenneth Arrow in the '70s proving that it's impossible to come up with any type of voting system that fully discourages strategic voting. It just turns out that Approval and Score Voting are the two (of some 50+ others) voting systems that are the most resistant to strategic voting.
CBS be all like 'Go, vaginas!'
Anyone know where I can watch Jimmy Dore rage live on election night?
You can’t make this shit up. Two trots competing for the same seat.
The only way for a politician to lose a district specifically gerrymandered for her is eating babies on prime TV while announcing a new prohibition.
And even then I have my doubts.
what a tweeeest
Some of us have been saying that electoral politics are a waste of time, but some niggas never learn.
In an argument on this board with a Trot who supported Niles Niemeuth's party I claimed that he would get less votes in the general election than the Dem got in her primary. The satisfaction of being right is the best thing about this election tbh.
So basically:
GOP holds Senate
Dems conquer the House
No one can be happy about this, but both sides will claim victory regardless.
something something Kaisereich
Even if we did like the Dems, all this means is it's going to be one giant cock slapping contest of blocking legislation, gerrymandering, presidential vetos, and immature back and forth mudslinging arguments.
Good. At this point in time legislative gridlock in America is a very positive thing for the rest of the world.
I voted today. I hated it but there was a referendum for legalizing Marijuana so I voted. I tried voting for candidates that were pro union the best I could.
As an anarchist, I died a little inside but maybe the legal weed will make the deadness inside go away in the future.
I hate being here in America but I can't escape. Maybe getting killed by a cop for being black might be easier.
...
My only hope is that gridlock and failure will cause enough introspection where some Dem safe seats will be couped by Berniecrats by 2020.
Long hair's not hipster, and I wear a suit jacket. Even a tie sometimes! I'd wear a better suit jacket and a better tie if I owned them. But optics aren't the actual problem.
Georgia candidate guy here - reporting hasn't finished for the 6th, but GA SoS's tally site just links to a private "unofficial" site which doesn't even list data for me. Didn't think I'd get many votes, but I did get some - and since I was a certified write-in, that data is supposed to be available.
I'm going to follow up on this in the morning. If they don't have that data, it's a confirmation that they literally just scrap votes and can do the exact same thing for any candidate balloted or write-in.
Yeah, Kemp not stepping down was already a major red flag. There's some shady shit going on here I tell you what.
Is this an LARP?
the writing is really on the wall for the democrats, its like yeah their professional political class needs donor money but at some point they've got to at least accept that people want basic socdem reforms and capitalise on that, plus the unions seem to be getting their shit together so im reasonably optimistic about some kind of cynical leftward shift by the party
Why would he rage? He doesn't care about Dems.
He always rages because the Democrats are fork-tongued sacks of shit.
A bunch of conservative Dems lost yesterday though, so that's more a cause for celebration. Good riddance Joe Donnelly, Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp
Socialist Equality should win the seat, they are the ones who keep World Socialist Website running, so they deserve it I guess. Also there anti-idpol which is rare in the American left. If I lived in Michigan’s 12th, I’d vote for Niles.
Bad things happened las night
We don't.
Since they are essentially the same, the fact that their violent agreement clogg things down only benefits the enemy.
If Russians hacked 2016, the Chinese did 2018. Bogus of course since we know it was Facebook and the Brits.
Petite bourgeois ethnonationalists gonna do what they do