Submitted 8 hours ago by DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
My question WASN’T actually clear enough, so I had to add “United States presidential” to the title. That said, I’ll start by saying I’d vote for Governor of Kentucky Andy Beshear.
Democratic Primary: Which ever one in the top-two that’s more progressive
General: Democratic nominee
I mean that kinda is the only strategy
Actually I have a better voting strategy:
But the moral prohibition on siding with any administration that endorses genocide will force a different flavor of the exact same logic that centrist liberalism has depended on for so long: hold your nose and align with the least worst thing. Only the least worst thing will no longer be the mild, ethics-agnostic emptiness of modern Western liberalism, nor will it be the multitude of barbaric authoritarians and their secret prisons. It will be communal solidarity, or else nothing, a walking away from all of this. Countless otherwise pragmatic people who would in any other circumstance choose liberalism by default will instead decide none of this is worth the damage to one’s soul. They will instead support no one, vote for no one, wash their hands of any ordering of the world that results in choices no better than this. And the obvious centrist refrain—But do you want the deranged right wing to win?—should, after even a moment of self-reflection, yield to a far more important question: How empty does your message have to be for a deranged right wing to even have a chance of winning? Of all the epitaphs that may one day be written on the gravestone of Western liberalism, the most damning is this: Faced off against a nihilistic, endlessly cruel manifestation of conservatism, and somehow managed to
make it close.
— Omar El-Akkad, One Day Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This, correction mine.
So what is your plan to actually achieve goals? Protest? A coup d’etat? Civil war?
Do you think archiving those goals in a MAGA-autocracy will be easier than in a less evil system?
How many lives is that sort of change worth?
You could register Republican, then vote in the Republican primary for the less evil candidate.
Then in the general election vote for the Democratic nominee.
Although I don’t think many people are doing that, so maybe there’s a flaw to my thinking
I simply don’t believe the GOP is possible to save at this point. So I’d never do that.
I’ll vote for the candidate that I think is going to do the most to advance the policy goals I’d like. Right now that happens to be the opposite of everything the GoP is doing, and half of what the Dems are doing.
I would vote for whichever candidate that has firm, unflinching, support for Trans, NB and GNC people. Someone who will rescind every EO (with special focus on anti-LGBT orders), return our dignity and sense of belonging, and vow to veto any and all anti-LGBTQ+ pieces of legislation.
This is of course in addition to abolishing ICE.
Fat chance of either, unfortunately.
I wouldn’t be able to.
But if I could, I would vote for the Democrat nominee. The voting system of the USA is a bit screwed, and voting for anyone but the better of the two most popular candidates is a wasted vote.
What do you think of parliamentary systems?
They are flawed as well. You will never agree with any party on all issues, so you have to already compromise during voting. Even more so if there is an electoral threshold.
If that legislative would then try to find different majorities for every different issue, the population would still be represented relatively well. But that’s not what actually happens.
Instead, two or three parties that represent just barely more than half the population get together and form a government. An executive government. That alone goes against the separation of powers.
And after that, most legislative decisions are made unilaterally by that government coalition.
That whole coalition circus doesn’t work without an electoral threshold, which again forces voters to compromise more.
Instead, I’d like to vote for the government directly, through ranked voting. With a separate ranking for each minister. That way I could eg. give my highest vote to the green candidate for the ministry of transportation, and Dr. med XYZ of the conservative party for the ministry of health.
Then, separate from the executive branch, I could imagine a parliament without an electoral threshold for the legislative. That would keep compromise during voting to a minimum. 0.5% of votes would already grant a seat. That way, voters can choose representatives they agree with on multiple issues.
Although my preferred solution would be a more direct system of petitions and citizen’s assembly. If an open petition gets enough votes, or the government petitions something, then a randomly selected citizen’s assembly would be called to meet, research, debate and decide on that issue. Similar to jury duty in the US.
Random selection sounds counter to what we generally consider democratic today. But it would be much less susceptible to corruption. And random selection means we get a representative sample of opinions.
Direct voting on issues is also relatively safe from corruption. However, especially with less mainstream topics, it has a tendency to let extremists win. Because they are better at mobilizing their voters.
For really important issues direct voting is still a pretty decent idea. For example for changes to the constitution. Especially if it takes 50% of eligible voters to change the constitution. Not just 50% of cast votes.
Mamdani.
Unfortunately the constitution prohibits him from ever becoming president, since he was born outside the US.
The constitution didn’t prevent a felon and rapist from becoming a president. I say the constitution is dead and needs to be replaced by one in where socialism is prevalent.
JB Pritzker I just think he would be a solid candidate
Not the GoP. Not the green party, at least with Stein still around. Not the dems after all their nonsense. So... I don't know; we'll have to see who runs. The "good" news for anyone disliking my selections is that the (heavily-Gerrymandered) district means my vote will almost certainly mean fuck all anyway (assuming they don't come up with some bullshit to throw out overseas votes to begin with since I can't really do anything about that).
Luigi
Oh and by the way there will be an election in 2028
It’s been only one year of Trump and I’m not sure of that.
I have the baseless theory that ICE is only an excuse to hire and arm like mined individuals that will fight and kill to protect Trump the day he announces no more elections.
Do you think that there will be no elections in 2028?
Hope springs eternal!
Greta Thunberg
That’s why Trump won last time. People like you. Disgusting.
Trump won last time because the party you are defending decided to run a senile POS that chose to court the right wing vote while throwing the marginalized communities they claim to support under the bus.
Leftists told Democrats this is exactly what was gonna happen when they backed Biden in 2020.
Yes, people that expect better. We’re the problem. You caught us. Good job.
Your faction of capital lost because they couldn’t stop fucking genociding Palestinians, campaigning with the fucking Cheneys, and they couldn’t even be fucking arsed to lie about a concept of a better future to a population so fucking servile than they would have forgotten about everything else if even offered the tiniest amount of mercy in domestic affairs, it was always ‘let’s go back to normal like Trump never happened, like the Gaza genocide never happened, like COVID-19 and Biden’s homicidal return to “normalcy” never happened, and like Kamala didn’t literally promise that there would be no fucking daylight between her and Biden’.
And turbo fuck you for trying to claim the moral high ground or even a harm-reduction position when the candidate you want me to fucking vote for did a genocide and supported stronger ICE, police, and military. Just fuck you and fuck everything you care about, and I hope all your nightmares come to life forever.
Klox@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Never republican. Prior to that, whichever Democrat says they will reign hell fire.
Disbanding ICE, disbanding TSA, slashing CBP, cutting military 75+%, expanding the supreme court by 10 seats, expanding DOJ for all the criminal prosecurions, forcing better vote methodologiss, forcing a constitutional convention (new branches of government, independent DOJ), encouraging new states (DC, Guam, Puerto Rico) to join the union to fix Senate proportions, remove electoral college, and add in mechanisms for national no-confidence votes. There’s a lot more heh.
K1nsey6@lemmy.world 30 minutes ago
You would actually trust a Democrat that came forward like that? We can even get them to commit not being assholes.
Klox@lemmy.world 19 minutes ago
Not Republican is the only qualifier if you’re not an insane person.
fonix232@fedia.io 4 hours ago
Getting rid of the TSA would be such a helpful step forward better air travel.
Most countries' airport security is to some extent modelled after the TSA, and was done in lockstep with the US increasing "travel safety" via invasive processes. Obviously it is toned back A LOT, but if the US were to get rid of the TSA and provide more lax regulations on air travel, most international countries would follow.
DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 hours ago
How about using that constitutional convention to turn the US into a socialist republic (or a “Cooperative Republic”)?