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

Map Enthusiasts

3606 readers
281 users here now

For the map enthused!

Rules:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months 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 5 months ago (1 children)

Well that's what it counts as now.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 months 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 5 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 5 months ago

kamala is worth voting for tbqh

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 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.

[–] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

That would be amazing... If it were true