this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
1074 points (95.9% liked)

Political Memes

8780 readers
3267 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 17 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

If you don’t have ranked choice voting you do not live in a democracy

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 3 hours ago

Even if you have ranked choice voting, you probably still do not live in a democracy.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Til that only Australians and the Irish live in democracy. It's used in other places, ofc, but on smaller scales.

Not to say I'm against it or anything, I'm all for it, but your statement is a bit exaggerated.

[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 6 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Many countries claim to be democracies but if the available choices are only x, y or z. The people are not truly expressing their will, 30% could like x, 30% could like y, they could all hate z but z gets elected because 40% like z.

That’s not democracy.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 hours ago

Ranked choice means it's easier for voters, but when it's not available voters are capable of understanding the scenario you describe and voting accordingly.

Many times I haven't voted for my preferred candidate and instead voted for the candidate most likely to defeat the candidate I couldn't stomach getting into power. Here in Canada we call it voting strategically and if you look at the polling data it definitely happened last election (and in many others in the past).

I'd like to have ranked choice, but it's insane to say it's not a democracy without it. But multiple rounds of voting (like France has) is better than ranked choice as it gives a clear choice to voters in the final round. But having multiple voting rounds is expensive and people might prefer to just vote once and have it done with, so ranked choice may be preferable for many people.

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Dunno, the most recent example was Romania. In the first round, 40% voted for the far right cunt and all the others had 20% or less. In the second round where there were only 2 candidates left, Nicușor Dan won with 53% and the far right cunt got 46%. So.. Z doesn't always win.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

It's not bad to have high standards, as long as they don't get in the way of making things better

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, you do. Just a shit one. I hope I don't have to explain how that it still a lot better than fascism.

[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 6 points 8 hours ago

It just puts you on the top of the slide towards fascism

[–] OKRainbowKid@lemmy.sdf.org -3 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

So you'd let the bus drive off the cliff because non-vegan ice cream doesn't fulfill your standards for ice cream?

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

False analogy. The actual choice was had in 2024 was "drive of the cliff at 40 mph, or drive off a cliff at 38 mph."

[–] OKRainbowKid@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

The problem is you only look one election ahead. You're myopia is what made you drive off a cliff in the first place.

[–] decended_being@midwest.social 10 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

No, I'd rather vote for vegan ice cream first, then vote against driving off a cliff.

Unfortunately our current system doesn't allow for that, so obviously I vote against driving off a cliff, but it feels so stagnating.

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org -2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

You will be please to hear that we are currently driving off the cliff. No more stagnation, isn't this great?

[–] decended_being@midwest.social 8 points 7 hours ago

I'm referring to / summarizing the Ratchet Effect.

Obviously movement for the sake of movement is not inherently good. But when our only allowed form of action is to vote and we see that voting has no or negative effect, it seems fruitless.

Because a slightly more realistic scenario is that the Dems vote to just throw some people off the cliff, and that's agreed between the two parties.