• 1 Post
  • 33 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: April 30th, 2025

help-circle




  • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.worksto196@lemmy.blahaj.zonerule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    Tbf there is a lot of money in propaganda. I don’t know how someone who grew up in some backwards-ass rural town/village in some hyper-conservative area in the deep south of the US is supposed to develop the critical thinking enough to look past fox news and actually do research. I’m not excusing them, but like, I understand why they don’t believe its happening.















  • it wouldn’t need any constitutional changes

    You need a lot of states to change their laws. Some states ban faithless electors unless the candidate they pledged for dies. So unless we’re yeeting the candidates off a building in order to stop fascism, you can’t change your electorsl votes.

    Also, if you’re method of avoiding fascism is by relying on the electors to keep their promise, you’re ending up with disaster.

    In the 1800 US presidential election, the system at the time was that 2 votes are cast by the electoral college, the one with most votes is the president and the with the second-most votes becomes president (stupid system, right?). Electors of the Jefferson-Burr ticket was supposed to have one of their electors vote for Jefferson, but not Burr, so that Jefferson has just 1 vote more than Burr, making Jefferson President and Burr vice-president.

    But NONE of the electors did that. They all voted for both, which resulted in a tie, resulting in a contingent election. (They later added an amendment to make Pres and VP two separate vote counts, which we have today)

    I don’t have faith in Electors to make good plans. Although Electors are handpicked hardcore supporters of a candidate, sometimes their fanaticism can make irrational decisions, including even ignoring instructions from the candidate they supposedly support. (For example: Some Sanders supporters did not vote Biden in the General election, even when Sanders endorsed Biden)


  • STAR? Sure.

    Approval? Nah

    Gonna copy paste my comment again:


    I can see a bit of strategic voting happening.

    Let me demonstrate:

    For the sake of simplicity, let’s say we have 3 candidates, and no term limits:

    Trump, Biden, Sanders

    Biden and Sander voters dispise trump, their preference in RCV is (example):

    Biden>Sanders>Trump: 30%
    Sander>Biden>Trump: 25%
    Trump>Sanders>Biden: 23%
    Trump>Biden>Sanders: 22%

    Okay, so lets say they all approve their top 2:

    Biden: 77%
    Sanders: 78%
    Trump: 45%

    Okay we have president Sanders! Congrats, right?

    Well, now the trumpers who approved sanders are like: “Hey wait a minute, we made our daddy lose because we approved Sanders”

    All the trumpers now have a meeting and decided that next election, they don’t approve Sanders or Biden as a strategic vote.

    So now, Election 2 Results:

    Biden: 55%
    Sanders: 55%
    Trump: 45%

    Oh great, it’s a tie. The law says that the election have to be re-done to solve the tie:

    Now this next election, all people who preferred Sanders first go to a Sanders supporter meeting and started saying: “Lets disapprove Biden so Bernie can win!”

    Simultaneously, Biden voters will be like: “Lets disapprove Sanders so Biden can win!”

    Next election results:

    Trump: 45%
    Biden: 30%
    Sanders 25%

    Congrats, we have a glorified FPTP and spoiler effect yet again!

    Now, other election systems could also have strategic voting, but its less likely with, for example, RCV, since you can rank candidates.


    STAR voting is also acceptable, but its also less heard of, and as far as I know, it hasn’t ever been done in a real-life election. I doubt that’ll get popular any time soon, might as well find another easier to implement Non-FPTP system to rally behind.