536

The congresswoman quipped that in attempting to avert a shutdown Republicans were “run[ning] around the House like a Roomba, until they found a door that House Democrats opened”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] WagesOf@artemis.camp 15 points 9 months ago

I think they're trying to finalize the GOP permanently splitting into two minority parties. The corporate GOP and the big lie Q crazies party.

If that happens the dems can run everything until enough of both parties can combine into a new oligarchy party.

[-] BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca 7 points 9 months ago

That's impossible with the way our system is set up (FPTP). They will never fracture hard enough to abstain from voting or actually come across the aisle. The crazier, more passionate viewpoints will take charge of party, and the rest will meekly follow with the justification of "they're less crazy than the dems." Maybe some individual voters will realize that the entire party is going nuts, but for every "independent" voter who finally gets the message, 5 ignorant fools who have never voted are scared into joining the electorate by a new level of fear mongering lies about who and what is responsible for the state of the country.

With book bans being stacked upon decades of defunded public education, things are very bleak.

[-] SaltySalamander@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago

You realize this country didn't start with Republicans and Democrats as the dominant parties, right?

[-] BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago

You realize that this country didn't start with any political parties at all, right? And that Washington tried to warn people against their formation, even as Adams and Jefferson consolidated power?

Like no shit things didn't instantly fall apart the second the Constitution was ratified, there's been 250 years of context, but FPTP is still one of the central causes of the stratification of elected politicians that we see today

[-] jhymesba@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

You do realise that there have only been 6 'systems' in the United States over its 250+ year history, right? And you do realise that the only actual political party changes were the First to Second Party System (in 1828, with the Federalists dying off) and the Second to Third Party System (in 1860, with the Whigs dying off, replaced by the Republicans)? You do realise that the Third to Fourth Party System, the Fourth to Fifth Party System, and the Fifth to Sixth Party System have only been realignments of the two existing parties? You do realise that the last time a non-major-party POTUS candidate won even a single EV was in 1968? You do realise that even Ross Perot couldn't get a single EV in 1996?

You realise that this country has a system in place to prevent voters from causing effective changes? Your vote for your minor party only ensures that you get the major party most opposed to your stances in a FPTP system elected, and you end up getting nothing of what you wanted instead of just something. If you want that fixed, your first step is to get your State to join Maine and Alaska and use Ranked Choice Voting. Your second step is then to get more third party Representatives and Senators in. Then you got to change the Constitution so that the POTUS is directly elected, rather than through the Electoral College, and use RCV nation-wide for that. That's a far better strategy than relying on something that's not happened in the past 160 years. IMNSHO, of course. :)

this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
536 points (97.5% liked)

politics

18081 readers
2219 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS