• @chaogomu
    link
    -23 months ago

    So, your plan for fixing everything is for the left to stop voting so that the right can win and make voting illegal.

    Because that’s how it works.

    This election in particular has democracy itself on the ballot.

    It may be a flawed democracy, but the only other option is a fascist dictatorship.

    There are no other options because of First Past the Post voting. Literally. The math does not lie.

    • Cowbee [he/they]
      link
      fedilink
      53 months ago

      So, your plan for fixing everything is for the left to stop voting so that the right can win and make voting illegal.

      No, my plan for fixing everything is to stop thinking voting fixes anything. Organize outside the electoral system and build dual power.

      This election in particular has democracy itself on the ballot.

      Ah, the endless lie. The US will always remain a bourgeois democracy, ie a democracy largely in name only.

      It may be a flawed democracy, but the only other option is a fascist dictatorship.

      Fascism is Capitalism in decay, can’t get rid of fascism by voting it out. You will repeat this lie until the US pushes us into World War 3 or we die of Climate Change, unless Leftists succeed in saving the world.

      There are no other options because of First Past the Post voting. Literally. The math does not lie.

      Math doesn’t lie, but you do.

        • Cowbee [he/they]
          link
          fedilink
          43 months ago

          Organize outside the system how? Armed resistance? Good luck with that. I for one, won’t visit your grave.

          Building up Dual Power for now. Armed resistance will be necessary, but likely not at a large scale.

          Trying to build a third party within the system? Fuck off back you your right-wing shithole. No one is going to fall for your also-ran spoiler candidate. Durverger’s Law and Arrow’s Theorem say that you cannot build a viable third party under First Past the Post voting. It’s literally impossible.

          What on Earth is this rant about? I’m right wing for not voting for a far-right Empire?

          As to the “endless lie” You are willfully blind if you believe that this election year is anything like the years past. Trump and Vance are openly embracing fascism.

          Fascism is Capitalism in decline. It’s not going away until Capitalism goes away, liberalism still leads to fascism.

          But hey, “Both sides” right? I mean, Biden has promised to fire most of the federal government to replace them with loyalists, and then use that federal government to attack anyone to the left of Nancy Pelosi, but no… that’s actually Trump again.

          And you’ll accept that and side with Trump against leftists, evidently.

          Trump, who is running for the first American dictatorship, and has promised to “fix” voting so you never have to do it again.

          And evidently you’ll let him.

          But go ahead and tell yourself that both sides are the same.

          They serve similar interests, we do not have a democracy.

      • @chaogomu
        link
        03 months ago

        Arrow’s Theorem and Duverger’s Law.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          13 months ago

          Those aren’t equations. You have a very stupid argument. Math can’t tell you who you should vote for. That’s like saying math can tell me what I should have for breakfast or what my favorite color is.

          • @chaogomu
            link
            -1
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Just because you’re too lazy to actually look them up, doesn’t mean that they aren’t full of equations.

            This is one Proof of Arrow’s Theorem;

            Let G be a coalition with size ≥ 2. Partition the coalition into nonempty subsets G 1 , G 2.

            Fix distinct x , y , z. Design the following voting pattern (notice that it is the cyclic voting pattern which causes the Condorcet paradox):

            voters in G 1 : x ≻ i y ≻ i z voters in G 2 : z ≻ i x ≻ i y voters outside G : y ≻ i z ≻ i x

            (Items other than x , y , z are not relevant.)

            Since G is decisive, we have x ≻ y. So at least one is true: x ≻ z or z ≻ y.

            If x ≻ z, then G 1 is weakly decisive over ( x , z ) . If z ≻ y, then G 2 is weakly decisive over ( z , y ). Now apply the field expansion lemma.

            See how helpful that is? No, Well, if you had a phd in math or political science it would be.

            This is the wiki link if you want the full Proofs. And that’s just Arrow’s Theorem.

            Durverger’s Law is both simpler, and more targeted. It simply states that if you have a system of government where there is single winner elections and plurality voting, you will inevitable have a two party system, and that further, any attempt to create a viable Third Party is not only doomed to failure, but is actively harmful to the interests of those Third Party voters.

            In other words, the Spoiler Effect, Like what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000. He’s the reason why Bush won.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              further, any attempt to create a viable Third Party is not only doomed to failure

              The Republicans were originally a “third party”. It used to be Democrats vs. Whigs.

              Duverger’s Law isn’t like a law against jaywalking. It just says that first-past-the-post systems create two-party systems, which is true. It doesn’t tell you who you should vote for.

              In other words, the Spoiler Effect, Like what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000. He’s the reason why Bush won.

              Al Gore actually won, depending upon how you count the votes. Additionally, you’re operating on the assumption that Nader voters would’ve voted for Gore, instead of just staying home.

              In fact, there were a lot of Democrats who voted for Bush, and their numbers dwarf Nader voters by several orders of magnitude. If you want to play that game, then it’s Democrats who are responsible for Bush winning, not the Green Party.

              • @chaogomu
                link
                03 months ago

                Simple question, where are the Whigs today? Gone? Because that’s what it takes to have a different party. The Whigs imploded, and the Democratic Republicans then swept the elections for a couple of years until the Republican Party coalesced.


                Gore did not in fact win. Not because he didn’t have more votes, but because it was close enough that Republicans could steal the election. I Ralph Nader had not been on the ballot, Gore would have easily pulled the win. But several thousand unimpeachable votes.

                This is called the Spoiler Effect. It’s the mechanism by with Durverger’s Law works. A vote for a third party is a vote against your own interests. Ralph Nader voters were horrified to learn that they helped Bush win the election.

                But all this debate here is effectively in a vacuum. We’re not actually talking about the current election. A vote for a socialist third party in this year’s election is a wasted vote. Full Stop. You’ll not impress anyone, and the socialist candidate will not care about you. And that’s because the “socialist” candidate is likely a Republican plant. Because the two major parties know about the Spoiler Effect, and Republicans specifically have been funding the “left leaning” third parties to split the vote so that they can win.

                If you as an individual want to harm yourself, I’ll not really care. I can’t stop you. But if you start advocating for others to join you, I’ll call you out as a Republican plant, working to fuck over the rest of us.