26
If the 2028 United States presidential election was held today, who would you vote for?
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
26 points (79.5% liked)
No Stupid Questions
45670 readers
1068 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wouldn't be able to.
But if I could, I would vote for the Democrat nominee. The voting system of the USA is a bit screwed, and voting for anyone but the better of the two most popular candidates is a wasted vote.
What do you think of parliamentary systems?
They are flawed as well. You will never agree with any party on all issues, so you have to already compromise during voting. Even more so if there is an electoral threshold.
If that legislative would then try to find different majorities for every different issue, the population would still be represented relatively well. But that's not what actually happens.
Instead, two or three parties that represent just barely more than half the population get together and form a government. An executive government. That alone goes against the separation of powers.
And after that, most legislative decisions are made unilaterally by that government coalition.
That whole coalition circus doesn't work without an electoral threshold, which again forces voters to compromise more.
Instead, I'd like to vote for the government directly, through ranked voting. With a separate ranking for each minister. That way I could eg. give my highest vote to the green candidate for the ministry of transportation, and Dr. med XYZ of the conservative party for the ministry of health.
Then, separate from the executive branch, I could imagine a parliament without an electoral threshold for the legislative. That would keep compromise during voting to a minimum. 0.5% of votes would already grant a seat. That way, voters can choose representatives they agree with on multiple issues.
Although my preferred solution would be a more direct system of petitions and citizen's assembly. If an open petition gets enough votes, or the government petitions something, then a randomly selected citizen's assembly would be called to meet, research, debate and decide on that issue. Similar to jury duty in the US.
Random selection sounds counter to what we generally consider democratic today. But it would be much less susceptible to corruption. And random selection means we get a representative sample of opinions.
Direct voting on issues is also relatively safe from corruption. However, especially with less mainstream topics, it has a tendency to let extremists win. Because they are better at mobilizing their voters.
For really important issues direct voting is still a pretty decent idea. For example for changes to the constitution. Especially if it takes 50% of eligible voters to change the constitution. Not just 50% of cast votes.
What do you call that electoral model?
The government would be voted through instant runoff voting.
The legislative would combine several forms of direct democracy. Namely:
Is it technocratic, and are you talking about extremely direct democracy?
Yes. I'm talking about an extremely direct legislative system.
Democracy is supposed to put decisions in the hands of the people. But in our current system, that doesn't seem to be the case. Germany is the 13th most democratic country. And still lobbyists have such a heavy influence that they might as well be considered our legislative.
Some people might be annoyed to be called for citizens's assembly duty. But democratic participation is vital if we want a fair system.
Do you think the US should've been a socialist country years ago?
No. To my knowledge, putting the means of production into the hands of the people was never a majority opinion. And democracy is important.
However, there are many social democratic policies that I believe have very broad support, and that still aren't being implemented:
Then there are other policies that I think would be really good for the US, but I am not sure the support is bipartisan:
The latter category is also where I would place steps towards market socialism. For example federal laws that allow worker cooperatives (currently only some states allow them). And potentially even lowering the tax on worker co-ops compared to conventional companies.
What's your opinion on those questions?
The executive system would be slightly more technocratic than our current system. Expertise would definitely give candidates an edge.
For many posts the votes would mostly be cast according to morals. Like how I chose the green candidate, regardless of qualifications, for the ministry of transportation. I want trams and bike lanes. Not a transportation engineer that knows how to build even bigger parking lots.
But during a pandemic, I don't want Spahn or Kennedy as health minister. I want someone like Lauterbach or Fauci. So maybe some technocracy is a good thing.