This is exactly what the idealist types who chirp on about third parties and revolutions should actually want to see.
A slow invasion and replacement of old gaurd DNC members with new life.
Very unfortunately, its very difficult to deliver on the type of instant change people want to see on the federal level given the need for 3 brnaches of government and a super majority in the senate, but at bare minimum I hope this makes people who just don’t pay attention to politics realize that it turns out there isn’t actually a reason things can’t be better, and it turns out you can actually just tax rich people a little bit more to see a huuuuuge benefit to your everyday life.
Speaking personally, I am happy to see this change. As a longtime supporter of alternative voting systems, I am glad to see the ‘new guard’ agree and take steps toward it. I even trust them to do it honorably [generally]. I love that the new guard is more economic and future focused. Its great that we see some break from the neoliberal norm.
Of course instant gratification would be nice. But I’m not complaining. And -personally- I haven’t seen others complain it’s too slow and booooo im a misanthrope.
I think it’s better to phrase these opinions as questions, not accusations. Like: “3rd party revolutionary types: what do you think of these? Do you like them?”. I guarantee you can’t put us all in a box.
I think it’s better to phrase these opinions as questions, not accusations. Like: “3rd party revolutionary types: what do you think of these? Do you like them?”.
I’m not sure it would help, because they fundamentally still have a very harmful idea that encourages voter apathy and hurts people.
Now this seems in bad faith and like projections wrapped into one.
What strawmen have i used exactly? Are you denying that people talk about starting third parties or revolutions? Those are extremely common talking points amongst the fringe of the online left.
As for respect, surely you mean civility, because respect should be based on the merit of ideas, not a given.
Those ideas have no merit whatsoever, so they certainly don’t deserve respect, and I don’t think anything I’ve said thus far has been uncivil, so I am still left thinking like at the start of this comment that your reply here is in bad faith.
I took your comment to read “idealist types should like this … but they don’t”. That’s what I replied towards, But on closer reading you didn’t actually say that. Just an implication I assumed.
No! Electoralism can never work! Iterative progress is literally impossible and harm reduction is a pointless goal! It’s actually bad when good things happen because that means people are less willing to burn everything down and accept beautiful Anarchy overnight!
I think about how we read history books and it’s all simple “X happened, then Y happened,” even if the events are years apart. It makes it feel like change happens quickly, because we’re taught about it in retrospect.
It’s frustrating how so many people today seem to think, “Well, a revolution hasn’t happened, so I guess it never will.” Are we that accustomed to immediate gratification that we can’t recognize that such large shifts take time? I see things slowly unfold and think, “How awesome that we’re moving in this direction!” But there are inevitably multiple downers complaining that it’s not happening fast enough.
You realize that revolution in my sentence was referring to a lot of people dying and your quality of life going to shit for years, potentially even decades right?
Its by no means a desirable concept to anyone with empathy or brains. You may not even come out on the winning side. In fact, the way it looks now the good people would lose almost immediately.
Are we that accustomed to immediate gratification that we can’t recognize that such large shifts take time? I see things slowly unfold and think, “How awesome that we’re moving in this direction!” But there are inevitably multiple downers complaining that it’s not happening fast enough.
Perhaps though, I am misunderstanding your comment (very possible) and you’re talking about the non violent, productive type of change that I was also referring to?
Perhaps though, I am misunderstanding your comment (very possible) and you’re talking about the non violent, productive type of change that I was also referring to?
Of course! Violence would suck, and I’d hope it’d be a last resort. We’re talking about changes using the “ballot box” here, not the “ammo box.”
this is why you need preferential voting, if the party that wins can see they won but on the 2nd, 3rd etc preference they can look at the party platforms that were preferred and then know where they need to go in the future to steer their platform and gain more first preferences
What you really want is proportional representation. This way you can just vote for exactly the party you want, and get exactly the representation amount proportional to the amount of people who voted for said party.
Some folding of the votes for parties too small to hold office could be reasonable, but I think a huge problem is any system that basically makes it impossible for anything other than 2 major parties to exist at a real player level.
This is exactly what the idealist types who chirp on about third parties and revolutions should actually want to see.
A slow invasion and replacement of old gaurd DNC members with new life.
Very unfortunately, its very difficult to deliver on the type of instant change people want to see on the federal level given the need for 3 brnaches of government and a super majority in the senate, but at bare minimum I hope this makes people who just don’t pay attention to politics realize that it turns out there isn’t actually a reason things can’t be better, and it turns out you can actually just tax rich people a little bit more to see a huuuuuge benefit to your everyday life.
Speaking personally, I am happy to see this change. As a longtime supporter of alternative voting systems, I am glad to see the ‘new guard’ agree and take steps toward it. I even trust them to do it honorably [generally]. I love that the new guard is more economic and future focused. Its great that we see some break from the neoliberal norm.
Of course instant gratification would be nice. But I’m not complaining. And -personally- I haven’t seen others complain it’s too slow and booooo im a misanthrope.
I think it’s better to phrase these opinions as questions, not accusations. Like: “3rd party revolutionary types: what do you think of these? Do you like them?”. I guarantee you can’t put us all in a box.
I’m not sure it would help, because they fundamentally still have a very harmful idea that encourages voter apathy and hurts people.
I just think we should hold conversations with respect and not strawmen.
Now this seems in bad faith and like projections wrapped into one.
What strawmen have i used exactly? Are you denying that people talk about starting third parties or revolutions? Those are extremely common talking points amongst the fringe of the online left.
As for respect, surely you mean civility, because respect should be based on the merit of ideas, not a given.
Those ideas have no merit whatsoever, so they certainly don’t deserve respect, and I don’t think anything I’ve said thus far has been uncivil, so I am still left thinking like at the start of this comment that your reply here is in bad faith.
I took your comment to read “idealist types should like this … but they don’t”. That’s what I replied towards, But on closer reading you didn’t actually say that. Just an implication I assumed.
sorry
No! Electoralism can never work! Iterative progress is literally impossible and harm reduction is a pointless goal! It’s actually bad when good things happen because that means people are less willing to burn everything down and accept beautiful Anarchy overnight!
I think about how we read history books and it’s all simple “X happened, then Y happened,” even if the events are years apart. It makes it feel like change happens quickly, because we’re taught about it in retrospect.
It’s frustrating how so many people today seem to think, “Well, a revolution hasn’t happened, so I guess it never will.” Are we that accustomed to immediate gratification that we can’t recognize that such large shifts take time? I see things slowly unfold and think, “How awesome that we’re moving in this direction!” But there are inevitably multiple downers complaining that it’s not happening fast enough.
You realize that revolution in my sentence was referring to a lot of people dying and your quality of life going to shit for years, potentially even decades right?
Its by no means a desirable concept to anyone with empathy or brains. You may not even come out on the winning side. In fact, the way it looks now the good people would lose almost immediately.
Perhaps though, I am misunderstanding your comment (very possible) and you’re talking about the non violent, productive type of change that I was also referring to?
Of course! Violence would suck, and I’d hope it’d be a last resort. We’re talking about changes using the “ballot box” here, not the “ammo box.”
this is why you need preferential voting, if the party that wins can see they won but on the 2nd, 3rd etc preference they can look at the party platforms that were preferred and then know where they need to go in the future to steer their platform and gain more first preferences
That is how it works here in Australia
Preferential voting is absolutely not the way.
What you really want is proportional representation. This way you can just vote for exactly the party you want, and get exactly the representation amount proportional to the amount of people who voted for said party.
Some folding of the votes for parties too small to hold office could be reasonable, but I think a huge problem is any system that basically makes it impossible for anything other than 2 major parties to exist at a real player level.