• OpenStars@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    5 months ago

    Great, now set everything on fire to represent climate change? 🔥

    Somehow those old movies where villains wanted to reduce the population of the planet are actually happening irl… 😞

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      5 months ago

      yes everything is on fire and track 1 has a few extinguishers but not enough.

      track 3 has an indeterminate amount of fire hydrants because i think it depends on which party actually gets the seat.

      track 2’s extinguishers have gasoline in them 😭

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        track 2’s extinguishers have gasoline in them

        Wouldn’t that make them “tinguishers”?

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          5 months ago

          technically yes but the Republican party calls them extinguishers in order to fool voters that are concerned yet poorly educated about climate issues

          • elliot_crane@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            Don’t forget, they also then demand that their supporters ignore the very obvious fact that gasoline is coming out of the extinguishers. After all, those voters wouldn’t want everyone thinking they were a librul, now would they?

      • OpenStars@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        Also, 95-99% of the time your vote doesn’t matter for… “reasons”. Including other votes (e.g. a liberal President paired against a conservative Congress), older votes (especially Supreme Court appointments), and non-votes (corporations are in control regardless of who or which party “wins”), etc.

        One lever pull event barely scratches the surface - we did not get ourselves into this mess in a day or even a decade, and it would take even more effort to get ourselves out.

        img

        And somehow, even knowing that, the Democratic party went all-in on Hillary fucking Clinton, smh. Americans are basically responsible people, and we can count on everyone to eat their veggies, r-r-right!? Even without bothering to campaign, R-R-RIGHT!?

        Trump did not even want to win - he was as much a symptom as he later fed that forward to become a cause himself.

        Therefore I think that “we”, the people who put effort into thinking things through, deeply, need to wake up and stop wishing and hoping that things will work out as we all hope and dream. Except that despite me saying “we”, that’s as far as I’ve gotten, so really truly it does not include me, who is merely a backseat onlooker hoping for my favorite team to win but offering little help along those lines to cause it:-). I don’t know what the next step is regarding the latter, but I offer kudos for trying to get people to understand regardless:-).

    • zbyte64@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Not in picture: a burning freight train is hurling towards our trolley and will overtake us if we loose any momentum from running over the children.

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    5 months ago

    Is your assumption that third parties solve all our problems if they win?

    The problem is the system, not the Individual actors involved. Yes there are some differences, but not enough to fix our current disasters.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      5 months ago

      For the sake of the model and steel-manning my would-be opponents I make that assumption, yes.

      But you are correct, I heartily recognize this assumption is quite silly in reality.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      This. If we’re bringing math into this, then it’s mathematically impossible for not voting / 3rd party to change anything in the same way calculus may not be 0 but near-zero enough to be indistinguishable. Combine FPTP with Electoral colleges with the power of existing political parties and the only way you’re going to make change is by either one or both of the following things:

      • Supporting one party so greatly you eradicate the other party, creating a vaccuum (eg, send GOP the way of the Whigs). In this situation, Democrats likely reconstitute themselves as the predominant center-right party while we get something of a social Democrat or true Green Party in their original place. A rubber-banding of the Overton window, if you will.

      • Utilize an existing party to change the system. This means evolving the party, which for anyone old enough, recognizes how much Democrats have changed in the last 2 decades relative to the Republicans who have actually somehow managed to only get worse.

      These are the only two proven methods to work. Third parties, Independents do not work until the system changes. And in order to change the game you need to first play by the rules of the game.

      • PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        These are the only two proven methods to work. Third parties, Independents do not work until the system changes

        the prohibition party got a constitutional amendment passed.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        Political organizing and pressure campaigns. I don’t personally see any of the prominent parties, including third parties, as good vehicles for this, and it will take far more than voting. So I would like to see a movement built outside of the political system that demands systemic change towards more and better democracy.

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    5 months ago

    Sure, except the third party track loops back to the R track because we live in a 2-party system.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      5 months ago

      Correct, I have this expressed with the line:

      Track 3 promises no death at all, but if collaborative action fails, track 2 wins due to a more cohesive bloc and everyone has to watch their children die.

      • Aqarius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        …This, honestly, sounds like less of a trolley problem and more of a prisoners dilemma. As in, if everyone enough people defect, you get track 2, if enough people don’t defect, you get track 3, and track 1 is if it’s in between.

        Of course, the problem, then, is that it would imply the people aiming for track 2 will defect, people aiming for track 3 won’t, and people aiming for track 1 would try to convince people not to defect, while defecting themselves.

            • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I mean tbf given the original intent of the creator any use of the experiment aside from pointing and laughing at the stupid idiots who the two decisions represent is a misuse

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          You’re not wrong. Especially with the fact that copious capital goes into political campaigning from all sides; it’s kind of like a prisoner’s dilemma where the prisoners can communicate—for a price but both tracks 1 and 2 are well funded by corporate interest while 3 is just kind of left to fend for itself.

  • Signtist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    Now this is my kind of meme; it actually gets into the details and complexity of the scenario it’s discussing - while still making fun of it and keeping the meme feel - rather than just simplifying it to the point where it looks straightforward, killing most of the important discussion.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      i disagree this meme sucks i hate having to think when i look at memes much less read 🙄

      • Colonel Panic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Memes have a will of their own. We are their pawns. The memes demand creation, who are we to deny them?

        The meme had to be made and I agree with you on the premise. It sucks, but it is reality. We have to first accept reality and accept how our system works. THEN we can start making changes to it.

        The problem with the people that get angry with Biden over genocide and declare they aren’t voting for him is that they are ignoring all the thousands of steps preceding an election. Laws, local elections, campaigns, funding, primaries, etc.

        To use a metaphor, we are on a cruise ship and we’ve been heading straight at some rocks for several hours and they show up 5 seconds before we crash they throw their hands up in frustration. Yeah, we need to be changing course WAY earlier than an election year.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    Wanna pull your hair out?

    Republicans are technically the third party in terms of registration numbers.

    It’s just that registered independents don’t mobilize as a political unit, so the fact that they jostle with the dems for first and second place in registrations doesn’t matter because the Republicans have the organization and systemic rigging to negate being in a position in America in terms of actual popularity more comparable to Canada’s NDP or Bloc Québécois.

  • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 months ago

    No lies detected.

    Unfortunately, this setup is not in practice different from the simplified model we usually work with, which is why we work with it.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      yeah i find nuanceposting is valuable 90% because it makes the petty pedants shut up by not giving them a shred of ambiguity to fang on to

      i consider it a personal victory that no one has accused me of being a genocide supporter in this thread yet, for example. unfortunately not the story for those who’ve posted more simplified models

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    You don’t need 46% to defeat 48%. If you strategically target specific cities you can win the presidency with just 20,000 votes 22% of votes.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      The post is primarily about 2024? It just references 2016 as an example of the electoral college screwing things up. Also the left leaning vote split thing literally did happen in 2000 so like what are your goals here lol, you can make your own post yknow.

      • pjwestin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        This post is citing data from 2016? So it’s referencing something that didn’t happen. Also, Bush beat Gore by 537 votes. Sure, if Nader hadn’t run Gore would have won, but you could just as easily blame the loss on the Florida GOP, “accidently,” purging thousands of legitimate voters by, “mistaking,” them for felons, or on the Butterfly Ballot that caused an untold number of voters to select the wrong candidate. I guess my goal here lol is to point out when people are blaming their preferred candidate’s loss on a mostly statistically insignificant portion of voters, and if you don’t like hearing what other people have to say you don’t have to post yknow.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          i’m not blaming anyone for anything, just providing a model of understanding things so there’s your confusion

          also blocked for being mean for no reason gootbye.

  • jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    Portrays the other parties as all rainbows and kittens. Particularly that libertarians would be about fighting climate change, which they would not be in any vaguely effective way.

    However, I’ll grant that ranked choice voting would be an excellent way for people to feel better about their vote, be pragmatic, and one day lead to more viable “parties” (though not immediately, the third parties are a self fulfilling prophecy of unlikely candidates to most voters)

  • unalivejoy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is much better than the earlier version that just called everyone stupid.

  • GratefullyGodless@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    The accuracy of your graphic can be summed up in one fact. You have Trump up against Clinton somehow. So, if you can’t even get that right, it’s no wonder the rest is a confusing mess.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 months ago

      “your representation of the real life confusing mess that is US politics was also a confusing mess. downvoted for not simplifying it into something that fits my worldview.”

      hilarious and sad. :( genuinely lives are on the line and we can’t put effort into reading a few sentences.

    • MetaCubed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Did you actually read the text of the meme? The 2016 graph is to show that the electoral college can invalidate the popular vote.

      There are 155 million levers. The plurality of the levers might win, but sometimes 46% of the levers is enough to beat 48% (this happened in 2016 due to the electoral college, see above) ----> big arrow pointing to the 2016 election results