Political Humor

1936 readers

623 users here now

Welcome to Political Humor!

Rules:

Be excellent to each other.
No harassment.
No sexism, racism or bigotry.
All arguments should be made in good faith.
No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
No bots, spam or self-promotion.
If you want to run a bot, ask first.
Site wide rules apply.
Have fun.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

BuckRowdy@lemmy.world

Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world

645

check check check check check check (feddit.org)

submitted 3 days ago by NichEherVielleicht@feddit.org to c/politicalhumor@lemmy.world

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I'm guessing you do not know the election thing I'm talking about, in Nepal the new election results (after the protest) basically gave >60% seats to a completely new party, while old powerful parties now have barely any representation, and it's not even a two party system. If it was two party system the new one would have gotten almost 80-90%.

So if something similar happened here, given people believe "both evil", third party would get overwhelming votes, if not at least the "more evil" would barely get any votes. The excuse of "we only have less evil to choose from" does not work if majority of the people still voted the "more evil", why would a party change if they keep getting votes based on what they are doing.

Edit: To add to this, even the registered and active members of the old parties voted for the new one. They even took campaign money to campaign for old parties, went to the people and told them to vote for the new party lol.

This kinda of results comes from not having your whole identity about a political party, which I don't see it here, and the strong individualism, where people say "well he gave us money last time, I'll vote him"