Sadly for you that’s not how logic works. Because I don’t want A does not mean I personally want B to happen. If B happens, I’m not personally responsible for that. The people who make up the rules, the people who continue playing the game, and the people who want B to happen are.
I’m sure you’ll make 2 and 2 equal 5 one day with that determination to ignore how math works
Until FPTP is out, you’re just as responsible for B by not voting for A as someone who voted for B.
To not participate meaningfully is to endorse the outcome least aligned with who you’d have been most able to support. That is literally how the math checks out under FPTP, to pretend it doesn’t is to stick your head in the sand because you’d rather feel valid and right than face the truth that the world doesn’t care if you’re more socialist than that guy who tried to shoot Marx for not being socialist enough, you still share the responsibility for fascist ascendancy if you don’t vote against it happening.
I don’t give two shits if you think your personal support for roundabouts shields you from the consequences of T-boning me at the intersection, I’m still taking you to court for the damages if you’re going to refuse to own up to your mistake and give me your insurance info.
It’s fucking wild how leftists are fully capable of recognizing the absolute idiocy of libertarian talking points until someone raises the contribution of the white left to 2016, and then suddenly they become the most individualist freaks on the planet and even your stated personal beliefs are enough to shield you from being accountable to the results of your actions.
I don’t have a duty to participate in this system. Votes are earned not deserved. You can keep believing that not voting is meaningfully endorsing the outcome, but that falls through when you ask yourself what would happen if 80% of people didn’t play? 90%? 100%?.. You’re math only works because you continue to play. Legitimacy is given by the players. The winners (the ruling class) aren’t going to change the game that favors them. Look at Canada, Trudeau initially got elected on a platform of electoral reform. He didn’t mention it once after he won, not once. The only way out is not to play.
- Strange game, it seems like the only winning move is not to play.
…no. in our pretty bad first past the post system, we shouldn’t vote for a good candidate. We should vote for the best, or least bad one.
Less voter turnout wouldn’t influence the system at all, and even if it did, there are not enough people with your views— your 80% figures— to pull something like that off. Maybe wait.
Because right now, yes both possible candidates won’t stop the major genocide going on, but one would actively do less harm to queer people, women, etc.
On the Canada/Trudeau front, you’re ultimately correct but it’s a bit worse when you examine the details:
Trudeau Liberals put together a committee to examine the options and recommend what would work best as a new electoral system. The Liberals recommended ranked voting: as the Liberals are the default first or second option for nearly everyone, this benefitted them the most. The Conservatives, New Democrats, and most independent actors favoured Mixed-Member Proportional, which is a variant of proportional representation with locally elected Members of Parliament and additional seats in the House of Commons to balance the total number of MPs and votes for each party. This system was expected to allow for more smaller parties to operate and would end the forever Liberal/Conservative control of Canada.
The Liberals put out a poll which used intentionally misleading questions and answers to try to guide responses towards ranked ballots. This effort failed due to a series of information campaigns from just about everyone with an interest in electoral reform, and ultimately the Mixed-Member Proportional system came out as the leading choice.
The Trudeau Liberals deemed the whole process and failure and completely dropped it, refusing to discuss it ever again.
Sadly for you that’s not how logic works. Because I don’t want A does not mean I personally want B to happen. If B happens, I’m not personally responsible for that. The people who make up the rules, the people who continue playing the game, and the people who want B to happen are.
I’m sure you’ll make 2 and 2 equal 5 one day with that determination to ignore how math works
Until FPTP is out, you’re just as responsible for B by not voting for A as someone who voted for B.
To not participate meaningfully is to endorse the outcome least aligned with who you’d have been most able to support. That is literally how the math checks out under FPTP, to pretend it doesn’t is to stick your head in the sand because you’d rather feel valid and right than face the truth that the world doesn’t care if you’re more socialist than that guy who tried to shoot Marx for not being socialist enough, you still share the responsibility for fascist ascendancy if you don’t vote against it happening.
I don’t give two shits if you think your personal support for roundabouts shields you from the consequences of T-boning me at the intersection, I’m still taking you to court for the damages if you’re going to refuse to own up to your mistake and give me your insurance info.
It’s fucking wild how leftists are fully capable of recognizing the absolute idiocy of libertarian talking points until someone raises the contribution of the white left to 2016, and then suddenly they become the most individualist freaks on the planet and even your stated personal beliefs are enough to shield you from being accountable to the results of your actions.
I don’t have a duty to participate in this system. Votes are earned not deserved. You can keep believing that not voting is meaningfully endorsing the outcome, but that falls through when you ask yourself what would happen if 80% of people didn’t play? 90%? 100%?.. You’re math only works because you continue to play. Legitimacy is given by the players. The winners (the ruling class) aren’t going to change the game that favors them. Look at Canada, Trudeau initially got elected on a platform of electoral reform. He didn’t mention it once after he won, not once. The only way out is not to play.
- Strange game, it seems like the only winning move is not to play.
…no. in our pretty bad first past the post system, we shouldn’t vote for a good candidate. We should vote for the best, or least bad one.
Less voter turnout wouldn’t influence the system at all, and even if it did, there are not enough people with your views— your 80% figures— to pull something like that off. Maybe wait.
Because right now, yes both possible candidates won’t stop the major genocide going on, but one would actively do less harm to queer people, women, etc.
Voting is for harm minimization, not endorsement.
On the Canada/Trudeau front, you’re ultimately correct but it’s a bit worse when you examine the details:
Trudeau Liberals put together a committee to examine the options and recommend what would work best as a new electoral system. The Liberals recommended ranked voting: as the Liberals are the default first or second option for nearly everyone, this benefitted them the most. The Conservatives, New Democrats, and most independent actors favoured Mixed-Member Proportional, which is a variant of proportional representation with locally elected Members of Parliament and additional seats in the House of Commons to balance the total number of MPs and votes for each party. This system was expected to allow for more smaller parties to operate and would end the forever Liberal/Conservative control of Canada.
The Liberals put out a poll which used intentionally misleading questions and answers to try to guide responses towards ranked ballots. This effort failed due to a series of information campaigns from just about everyone with an interest in electoral reform, and ultimately the Mixed-Member Proportional system came out as the leading choice.
The Trudeau Liberals deemed the whole process and failure and completely dropped it, refusing to discuss it ever again.