this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
912 points (97.6% liked)

Map Enthusiasts

3353 readers
2 users here now

For the map enthused!

Rules:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

What if "didn't vote" counted as "voted for both options, they're equally wonderful and we'd be happy either way"?

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well that's what it counts as now.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 month ago

Not really, did not vote is exactly the same as voted for the winner. In a FPTP not voting is saying whoever wins, that's what I wanted.

[–] hightrix@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I’ll take one good option. That’s all I ask, someone to vote for, not as a vote against the other person.

[–] match@pawb.social 3 points 1 month ago

kamala is worth voting for tbqh

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The problem with a Presidential system is that there are plenty of eligible candidates. There just aren't any "electable" ones. Even within a given state, you often only have one "electable" option, because your state is going to tilt 5-30pts towards that person anyway.

One of the appeals of a small-district parliamentary process (as seen in pretty much every other functioning liberal democracy) is that you don't need to choose between Old Racist Fuck and Coconut Lady. You can focus your attention on local politics and send up an MP aligned with a regional party willing to form coalition on the condition they can bring back some benefits to their community.

But that requires you to have elected officials you can actually meet in your neighborhood, rather than minor aristocrats who govern from impenetrable gerrymanders spread across a 50 mile territory.

[–] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

That would be amazing... If it were true