Everytime I look at small problems or big global problems, if you follow the money trail, it all leads to some billionaire who is either working towards increasing their wealth or protecting their wealth from decreasing.

Everything from politics, climate change, workers rights, democratic government, technology, land rights, human rights can all be rendered down to people fighting another group of people who defend the rights of a billionaire to keep their wealth or to expand their control.

If humanity got rid of or outlawed the notion of any one individual owning far too much money than they could ever possibly spend in a lifetime, we could free up so much wealth and energy to do other things like save ourselves from climate change.

  • TBi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    You should look into ranked voting. You still only get one vote, just if your preferred candidate is eliminated you can propose your second/third choice as well. This allows you to vote with your morals but also strategically.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      This isn’t correct

      You get 1 vote but you’re giving points to the 1st/2nd/3rd option

      Most people differ on first option so someone politically between the two usually gets to win

      The hopeful outcome is that you get candidates further left or right than what is presently available even though they wouldn’t win

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        The problem exists, but I do wonder if the average voter can understand it. We have a lot of difficulty getting average people to understand basic concepts.