Sure, a nudge of the needle is better than nothing, but it’s not even close to enough to save us. You may as well be arguing “sure everyone is starving but eating old newspapers is better than nothing, even if the wealthy are still throwing lavish banquets every day”.
With preferential voting, there’s simply no excuse for putting such mediocrity at the top. All you’re doing is propping up their system that simply teeters between “more greed for the wealthy” and “slightly less greed foemen the wealthy” until it finds the maximum amount of psycopathic neoliberalism that the public will tolerate.
OK, sure, but what’s your solution? What should we be doing instead of these new efficiency standards that can’t be done in addition to them? I don’t disagree with your frustrations, but it’s easy to say something is not good enough without also providing something that is.
I don’t disagree with your frustrations, but it’s easy to say something is not good enough without also providing something that is.
I’m not a politician and it’s not my job to write environmental policy.
Even if I were to write you a policy that was flawless in every way, what good will that do 3 levels deep, on a small community, on an obscure social media platform? I don’t have the power to enact it nor the platform to promote it.
What I can do is call out policy that isn’t good enough, both publicly and privately to the parties and representatives, letting them know that I’m simply not going to vote for them if that’s all they’ve got. Without people grovelling around their feet and thanking them for crumbs, their choices are to either do better or never hold power again.
And like I said, with preferential voting there is no excuse. You’re not going to waste your vote if your first choice doesn’t get in. You don’t need to run damage control for Labor to save us all from Liberals. So why celebrate “slightly better” just because it’s not slightly worse?
Sure, a nudge of the needle is better than nothing, but it’s not even close to enough to save us. You may as well be arguing “sure everyone is starving but eating old newspapers is better than nothing, even if the wealthy are still throwing lavish banquets every day”.
With preferential voting, there’s simply no excuse for putting such mediocrity at the top. All you’re doing is propping up their system that simply teeters between “more greed for the wealthy” and “slightly less greed foemen the wealthy” until it finds the maximum amount of psycopathic neoliberalism that the public will tolerate.
OK, sure, but what’s your solution? What should we be doing instead of these new efficiency standards that can’t be done in addition to them? I don’t disagree with your frustrations, but it’s easy to say something is not good enough without also providing something that is.
I’m not a politician and it’s not my job to write environmental policy.
Even if I were to write you a policy that was flawless in every way, what good will that do 3 levels deep, on a small community, on an obscure social media platform? I don’t have the power to enact it nor the platform to promote it.
What I can do is call out policy that isn’t good enough, both publicly and privately to the parties and representatives, letting them know that I’m simply not going to vote for them if that’s all they’ve got. Without people grovelling around their feet and thanking them for crumbs, their choices are to either do better or never hold power again.
And like I said, with preferential voting there is no excuse. You’re not going to waste your vote if your first choice doesn’t get in. You don’t need to run damage control for Labor to save us all from Liberals. So why celebrate “slightly better” just because it’s not slightly worse?