Map Enthusiasts

3451 readers

19 users here now

For the map enthused!

Rules:

post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps
be nice

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

zksmk@sopuli.xyz

garfaagel@sh.itjust.works

912

If Clinton, Trump, and Did Not Vote were presidential candidates in 2016 (brilliantmaps.com)

submitted 3 months ago by lars@lemmy.sdf.org to c/map_enthusiasts@sopuli.xyz

193 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] hightrix@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months 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 3 months ago

kamala is worth voting for tbqh

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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.