The Pennsylvania Democrat recalled his time serving as a Hillary Clinton surrogate in 2016, even after he supported Bernie Sanders in the primary.

  • Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It helps to think of it in pragmatic terms of what your vote does, versus whether or not you fully support X or Y. It is undeniable that given the stupid electoral system we were born into, that voting third party effectively supports whichever mainstream candidate you don’t want to win.

    All the rest of the time, whether in primaries or public forums like this, you argue and vote for what/who you really want.

    But once you hit the general election, it is essentially cast in stone that either the R or D candidate will win.

    We need ranked choice voting so that candidates care about what the people really want, versus just getting more votes than one specific other person.

    • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      voting third party effectively supports whichever mainstream candidate you don’t want to win.

      What if you don’t want either to win and see the trend of both parties turning more to the right since Reagan and locked in a death spiral. Corporate tax rates are as low as ever, both parties support the military industrial complex and police state, both support the Palestinian genocide, neither party wants to get rid of Citizens United and Super PACs (regulated less than charities) now control and appropriate political action for corporate interests, neither party supports public healthcare. Like yeah the degradation may happen slower under Democrat but they haven’t shown signs of turning their backs against the corporate interests ruining the country/world.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you don’t want either one to win, there is no way for you to legally make that happen.

        So if you accept that is true, and you have a preference among the two parties, that is where pragmatism suggests voting against the greater evil.

        But if you honestly have little to no preference, then you won’t care about the so-called consequences of voting third party, and can do whatever.

        I mean obviously you can always do whatever you want. This is just the game theory you’re thinking that means we need to change our voting system before the two-party lock-in would even start to loosen.

        • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Pragmatism would suggest I spend my efforts being politically active in other ways rather than dedicate it to a bipartisan death spiral. I’m active on the labor, municipal, and environmental front, and none of it is online.

          • Zink@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That sounds awesome!

            I was just talking about the vote decision in the booth though. Actually helping change along is arguably even more important than voting in the first place, because each individual involved has a larger effect, and one that they care about much more than choosing the lesser evil.