![](/static/253f0d9/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
Now there’s an idea. Let’s do the same thing with Trump’s voice. His base is stupid enough to obey.
Now there’s an idea. Let’s do the same thing with Trump’s voice. His base is stupid enough to obey.
You mean lease it? Rent it? Own implies it’s mine period. Not mine until they decide to remove it. A bank can’t take away your house cuz they feel like it after you’ve paid for it.
Gamer here. Go fuck yourself Ubisoft. You can quote me on that.
Then. What. The. Fuck. Do. You. Think. Life. Is. Like. For. Your. Constituents.
These idiots are literally building their own gallows to be strung up on. Mind boggling lack of foresight.
No, no, no. Calm down everyone. No one has ever died from revolutions triggered by oppressed populations…
That kinda talk will get me shot!
People place different values on time, money, energy, etc. Just because you find it too expensive for the effort, doesn’t mean someone who has more money and less energy would make the same judgement.
The problem is the spoiler effect. It’s a well documented shortcoming of FPTP.
We need to all ask ourselves what is the biggest impact I can make politically with the energy I am willing to spend. For me, energy spent voting should never be LESS than energy spent complaining about politics.
The real problem is no one votes. It’s the bare minimum level of effort. It’s the participation trophy. They can do all that because we put them there with embarrassingly bad voter turnout. We spend more time complaining than actually voting.
All of those problems are the symptoms of an unrepresentative government, and a government tends to represent the people who vote for them. If no one votes, they’ll listen to the highest bidder.
So what do you propose? Do what instead of voting? Seems like the lowest hanging fruit to me. The left tends to win with turnout. The left tends to be more progressive and more conducive to evidence based problem solving. Fixing the parties at the primary level seems like the lowest effort solution for the largest pay off.
Encouraging voter apathy is counterproductive, unless you are going to propose we do something else that’s more effective for the same energy expenditure.
I truly believe that if every person who complained about politics spent as much time voting as they did complaining, we’d have a more representative government.
We complain about a government that is corrupt, run by the wealthy as if we’re not the ones who put them there. Inaction is an action. Why should they represent our interests if we don’t even vote? All not voting tells a politician is that you aren’t their constituent.
My question is a statistical inquiry. Your question is a bit more complex, I’m not even sure what that data would look like.
How common are faithless electors?
No, it holds regardless. Your argument is the same as saying there’s no point in voting if you don’t win.
Your real problem is as I said, Primary Elections, where we have EXCEPTIONALLY terrible voter turnout. The primaries are where you choose your party representatives. If you are complaining about the General election, the fight was already lost.
Here is why you should never vote third party in a FPTP voting system. If you are not happy with your candidate choices, then we need to increase voter turnout in local elections, mid terms, and most importantly, primary elections. Primary elections are where you actually can change the spirit of the political parties, but hardly anyone votes in primaries despite them being arguably the most important.
Don’t know why you got down voted for that. HDR might be the only reason I use 11.