“According to FEC filings, the Synapse Group has worked for Republican Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota, who ran for the GOP presidential nomination this cycle, as well as GOP candidates for Congress. Synapse has also been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for field and canvassing work by America PAC, the outside spending group started by allies of Musk that has spent millions of dollars this election cycle to boost Trump and oppose Democrats.”
Putin’s Jizz Stein wants Nato disbanded, the US to give up their SC veto, and revoke weapons to help Ukraine defend itself while simultaneously forcing ‘peace’ (subjugation) negotiations with russia.
For those that don’t understand how the Electoral College + FPTP voting works, voting for her means helping donald become president due to the spoiler effect.
Just as a bit of context:
- Willy Wimmer is a German former Bundestag member, who is massivly into conspiracy theories and at this point far right
- Michael Flynn was one of the contacts between Trump and the Russian government. He plead guilty to that
- Cyril Svoboda was one of the guys who gave Voices of Europe an interview in which he supported Russias position on Ukraine. Voices of Europes interviews were paid and used as a way to finance the far right in Europe using Russian money. It is currently under EU sanctions. His former party has distanced themself from him, due to his ties to Russia.
- Emir Kusturica is a Serbia film director, who makes propaganda films and has far right pro Russian positions. His wife is well his wife.
The rest are obviously all Russian politcal figures and well Jill Stein. The photo was also taken at a Russia Today celebration. Just saying.
Democrats should combat this by advocating for ranked choice or approval choice voting which is a fairer voting system and won’t allow for “spoilers”
They should.
They won’t because they benefit from the system too.
But they should.
That’s the thing about these viral talking points they’re making though - this can be used as a launch pad for approval choice voting if we all bring it up every time it’s mentioned in conversation. Using improv’s “Yes, and,” to further leftist causes. With enough peer pressure it’s possible to change public policy.
Yeah, election reform should be the first priority …once this election is done. And age limits for federal offices and judicial appointments. And federal standards for how federal elections are held. And roughly dozens of other things :)
Disagree, I think any Democrat worth voting for will bring this up. I think this is a “right now” topic which is a perfect rebuttal to their annoyance with third party candidates.
The problem is that some form of ranked choice voting is the right choice, but have you ever tried to explain RCV to anyone over the age of 50? I have had to in a professional setting, and it’s nearly impossible. It just makes them confused and angry. Unfortunately elections are not the greatest forum for explaining new ideas, and if Harris were to come out for it, she’d likely lose more votes than she’d get.
Can you imagine the headlines and tv news chyrons from certain sources if she even mentions “needed election reforms” right now? The whole race would become about how she’s trying to “break elections” and take over the country. We’ve got people right now seriously talking about Haitians eating pets based on absolutely nothing - and you think her talking about changing how we hold elections is going to help?!
However, during the honeymoon of a new administration and if we get enough seats in Congress, it might be possible to start the conversation that would lead us down that road. Especially if folks are willing to make it obvious that we’re going to hold their feet to the fire when it comes time for the mid-terms.
We’re not talking about something even within the purview of the President - we’re talking Congress and state legislatures. The only way to do it is to have a President using the bully pulpit and citizen groups with such overwhelming activity that the politicians know their jobs are on the line.
I have no personal experience of explaining ranked choice.
I can imagine calculating ranked choice vote outcomes is probably pretty labour intensive (without computers).
However people generally understand the concept of how someone comes 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in a race, and I’m sure most people have thought about a ranked list of their favourite movies or football players, so it’s not some completely alien concept.
Instead of just choosing who you want to win, you fill out the ballot saying who is your first choice, second choice, or third choice (or more as needed) for each position. https://time.com/5718941/ranked-choice-voting/
That seems pretty simple to me, unless I’m missing something?
And finally whole bunch of countries manage this without any issues …
Internationally, it is used by voters in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Malta, Northern Ireland and Scotland. https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/politics/what-is-ranked-choice-voting-and-where-is-the-system-used/2638554/
Coming from a two party country (UK) the only real issue I see is the fragmenting of power and subsequent need to form endless alliances in parliament. (If I voted for the Greens but the Greens need the the votes of another party and end up doing deals is that really representing my vote…)
Look at the Examples section on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting and I think you’ll see it’s probably more complicated than anticipated. And everyone has an opinion on which is the “best” method (which is fair as they are each optimized for different goals).
In theory it shouldn’t be hard to explain, and yep, lots of places all over the world manage it without a problem. But remember in the US we’re so idiotic we can’t even accept the metric system. And a fair numbers of folks are absurdly proud of that fact. We’re also not smart enough to handle health care like everyone else does or provide real parental leave. So while ranked choice voting is objectively superior to first past the post and even aligns with a lot of people’s stated goals for fairness, etc., it’s still a huge uphill climb and many folks will reject it outright without even really thinking about it.
So in summary, it can be done, but not likely to be something you want to run on as a presidential candidate.
All valid points, and I didn’t realise the differences in outcomes based on the various counting methods!
That would be complex to explain to many people I’m sure. However, and I’m possibly biased here, there’s a whole bunch of systems I don’t fully understand (car engines, encryption methods, football tournament knock out rules) but I know they work and tend to accept them and at least understand their limitations and outcomes.
I can totally see how people would reject things they don’t understand, and could be easily pushed in to rejecting a new system.
Also I agree that winning an election based on the change could be hard, and perhaps attempting to introduce this change later would work. Though I’m not sure the big parties (labour and conservatives in UK) really want to change a system that works for them!
The sad thing is that RCV might require a constitutional amendment to make it happen nationwide. See for example https://www.pressherald.com/2017/05/23/maine-high-court-says-ranked-choice-voting-is-unconstitutional/
I like it but I don’t see it happening without some other major reforms. Hence why I keep hoping for the 127 DC states plan…
That seems pretty simple to me, unless I’m missing something?
This is a good video that gets into the issues of various forms of voting, and argues “approval voting is the best option”.
Because it is the best option. It’s dead simple, it’s easy to give updates mid count, it’s easy to audit, it’s no more expensive than any other form, etc.
This is not to say it’s perfect, but it’s easily the best.
A major systematic change is never “right now” - progress at that scale is only made incrementally, through continuous work.
Oh yes. I remember Woman’s Suffrage and Civil Rights being incremental changes done by Congress after every election. Something, something, overton window. No, not forcing legislative action with civil unrest.
The sad thing is, watching those old speeches idk if those people would make leeway today. Love their arguments and bravery, and sometimes Madalyne Murray O’Hair is absolutely hilarious, but idk if they’d actually make legal progress today like they did then. Idk if Mr Roger’s would have gotten funding from his famous speech. We’ve regressed as a society.
Its always “next time”
Well, as magic wands are in short supply, how do you propose we deal with the practicalities of getting it done? A bit flippant, but it’s the kind of issue that needs to be worked on all the time, not just every four years.
Well, as magic wands are in short supply, how do you propose we deal with the practicalities of getting it done?
Well, since Democrats ain’t gonna do it and Republicans sure as hell ain’t, let’s quit using it as a prerequisite for fixing things that centrists don’t want to fix but also don’t want to be pressured over.
The last time that was introduced was 2021. They WERE. They currently are not.
They still are, the Wikipedia page just hasn’t been updated.
Edit: Actually, if you’d just look at the “Legislative History” section of the wiki article instead of reading just the top summary, you’d see it got reintroduced in 2024.
That’s not ALL the democrats. That’s not a message by the entire party.
Eta: yes since my last comment it was reintroduced by the same guy, at the time I commented it had not been reintroduced in 2024
It’s from some of the most senior democrats from the progressive and centrist wings and would permanently destroy Gerrymandering, I’m pretty sure most democrats would support it given the chance.
Then the public should demand their representatives talk about it more
Moving the goalpost
Really? You think the Democrats should be spending valuable time in an election year talking about a niche electoral reform that most people would need explained?
There’s a reason 99% of political rhetoric revolves around bread and butter issues or something that can be used to scare people. RCV is neither of those, and most people who are actually dedicated to getting RCV already know about FairVote and the Democratic party’s willingness to pass RCV.
Seems kinda dirty that Jill Stein would even consider “doing business” with the GOP. I kinda figured as a third party leader she of all people would put her morals and beliefs above numbers.
she is, and always has been, at best an out of touch accelerationist, and at worst a fascist sympathizer and collaborator
With a tip of the keyboard to a certain someone who has blocked me and won’t see this (a shame really):
Since many in this community have a habit of resorting to personal attacks when responding to posts recently, I’ll say this: I support and respect everyone’s right to vote for who they want to. Just as I support the ability of anyone to point out to someone the consequences of their actions. ;)
I’m just posting this article that’s already available on a much bigger platform than Lemmy—I didn’t write it, just sharing it for discussion.
If your second paragraph is implicating who I’m thinking since you’re basically using a direct quote of theirs, then I’m not at all surprised by them blocking you. They love to take quotes out of context or ignore half of a quote for their own benefit. I love that you’re directly calling them out. Good on you for actually knowing how our election system works.
What this? Oh just Jill Stein enjoying dinner with known traitor Mike Flynn and the guy who wants Democracy destroyed and Trump in office— Pootie.
Yep, she’s the greenwashing candidate who comes out every four years to collect a paycheck and espouse Libertarianism. An absolute grifter.
With a tip of the keyboard to a certain someone who has blocked me and won’t see this (a shame really):
I can take a pretty educated guess as to who that is. You’re not wrong for posting this in the slightest.
These shenanigans are the exact type of bullshit that shows the U.S. is a failed democracy, and is in need of severe election reform. That goes for the form of financial reform, switching to more representative types of voting like approval voting, measures taken to make gerrymandering impossible, etc.
The irony in my discussions with that other user is that I wholeheartedly agree we need viable third parties. And to your point, we desperately need election reform. But their willful ignorance of the fact we need to put out the house fire before we start discussing changes to building codes is the kicker.
The sad thing is that all the current third party candidates are useful idiots and not viable alternatives. And with democracy literally on the line, there’s not any real option other than acting like an adult and casting a ballot for the only option that moves us forward. And then the day after Election Day, start doing the real work to fix this for every Election Day thereafter.
It’s insane. It’s like trying to debate a wall. At this point, I’ve resigned myself to just trying to counter the wrongheaded arguments if I don’t see anyone else doing so.
sounds like I had the exact same conversation with this person not long ago.
So many of us have - it’s sort of amazing. It doesn’t help that they often copy and paste common responses to different people, so in some cases the conversation is pretty much the same verbatim on their end.
As I said yesterday, I can’t believe he is not banned yet. Repeatedly claiming that he doesn’t care about the spoiler effect because he “doesn’t believe in it” and copy-pasting long (often unrelated) walls of text at people verbatim sounds to me like multiple violations of the “good faith discussion” rule.
It’s almost like they have an agenda.
Hey, you never need to apologize for sharing news unless it’s fabricated - some people may downvote articles they disagree with but most of us just appreciate the folks that find stories to share.
They are being facetious because the user they mentioned constantly posts in favor of third party candidates and had taken to writing a bizarre disclaimer like this to essentially troll the many users they’re pissing off with their behavior
Oh lord, don’t normalize this drivel.
Something smells like borscht at this dinner?
I don’t know what borscht smells like, but I assume it’s …. Uh…. “Unique”
Borcht is delicious. It’s beef/chicken/protein veg with beets as a kind of stew with a sort of tomato creme sauce. You typically serve it with a genous dollop of sour cream and dill. The dill is optional (I know some people hate that flavor) but in my opion is really key.
It doesn’t really have a particular scent other than “stew”. It’s great in a slow cooker, and you can bastardize/customize it if you want (although it may not technically be Borcht at that point). If I don’t have beef I’ll do it with polish sausage and sometimes had boiled eggs.
10/10 don’t sleep on tasty European tomato beet meat stew. Stew/soup season is coming.
Reading this makes me want to try borcht! Thanks for explaining what it is. Sounds delicious.
Nothing wrong with a good borscht and good bread.
Lots wrong with the people in the picture though.
I think this is a losing issue for Democrats to be putting effort into… while third party candidates may be spoilers in our current system the solution is not to try and disenfranchise those parties - it’s terrible optics and, if you want to capture green voters there are so much easier tactics.
