Someone running for office should not be entitled to a vote simply because the opposition is bad. Even if they're as bad as Trump. I wish more people demanded better from their leaders, it would stop this ridiculous slide to the right the entire American political system has been going though for decades.
You fix that by pushing for ranked choice balloting, until then, it's your job to get the least objectionable person elected, which in this case is Harris.
I agree with the first part, not the second however. This situation of voting for the least objectionable person led us to this kind of election. I want more progressives to demand progress and making it conditional to their vote instead of just accepting the least shitty option because the other one is a fascist dickhead. MAGA won't go away if Harris gets elected, even with a majority of the house and senate. Until America demands better than their politics will just continually slide to the right. Ranked choice balloting would be a major gamechanger, I just don't see it happening at all. Not with the current political climate.
Ballots aren't where effective political action happens. Demanding better means organizing outside of election years, maintaining strong communities, and showing up to participate in political action that isn't just ticking one of a few allowable boxes. Demanding better sometimes means just doing better, regardless of the state's involvement. That isn't directly applicable to, say, genocide, but it does help build a real base of support that allows people to work outside the system to further that progress between elections.
I'm voting for Harris because I would much rather organize under her administration than Trump's. It's a dead simple choice imo, because demanding better means doing the work every other day than Election Day.
and definitely pay more attention to your local elections, those will more directly impact you and the people around you.
Fully agree. I wish more people actually voted uncommitted in the primaries for reasons such as this. To show that American voters want a progressive, not a moderate of an extreme far right fascist.
Let's say for a moment that progressives and Democrats did that for whatever issue they personally felt strongly about.
First, we have to acknowledge that the Republicans ARE NOT doing that. So they're vote count doesn't change and they win
Second, people will disagree on the same issue. You can't capture everyone on every issue. Refer to the first point, Republicans win.
Third, there will be huge factions each with their own issue. A candidate cannot sway all these single issues groups. See the first point, Republicans win.
What first past the post representative democracy means is to vote for the viable politician that MOST ALIGNS with your political position. Not the one that EXACTLY aligns. If you build the third parties at the local and representative and Senate level. Maybe you can get there, but for now, this is the political system we have to work in.
I don't disagree with anything you just said. I'm just saying that an argument for a candidate on an issue should be a lot better than "better than Trump". It's a ridiculously low bar America has been forced to accept, and by extension the world.
"In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good you won’t have to vote," he said. "Christians get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it’ll be fixed. It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore." - Donald J. Trump.
Literally destroys your point of view. You will not have the opportunity if he gets elected. We're not just risking American democracy here, we're on the precipice of history. We're at the point everyone asks about regarding WWII -- the common question is -- "Why didn't anyone do anything?"...well, we clearly have people screaming at the top of their lungs that they should do something.
You fix that by pushing for ranked choice balloting, until then, it's your job to get the least objectionable person elected, which in this case is Harris. - Jordanlund
I agree with the first part, not the second however. This situation of voting for the least objectionable person led us to this kind of election. - Sundial
You did, by basically doing the "they're both the same!" argument.
How in the earthly hell can you not see that they aren't anywhere close to the same?
MAGA won't go away if Harris gets elected, even with a majority of the house and senate.
Sure they won't go away, but we can reverse their fucking DEADLY policies. They're literally talking about rounding up their enemies and putting them in camps.
This "both sides" argument is such trash, because both sides are clearly nowhere near the same.
I never said they were the same. I said if the only way Harris is better than a fascist wanna-be dictator is that fact that she's not that person, then it's not a good argument to vote for her. Candidates aren't and shouldn't be entitled to vote simply because of how bad the opposition is.
Americans have been voting for the less shitty options for decades, and all its done is a continuous slide to extreme far right and fascism. People need to demand better during elections and outside of elections. Imagine how different the Gaza situation would be if more people voted undecided in the primaries. It would have forced the Democrats to really address it and rein in the situation. That would have removed the biggest issue with Harris campaign. Michigan would not have been a state that could swing red if that were the case.
I said if the only way Harris is better than a fascist wanna-be dictator is that fact that she's not that person
That's the same thing! Nobody is voting for harris because she's "not trump" like they did with Biden. She's GENUINELY simply got better policies on literally everything.
She's not better than him because she's not that person, she's better than him in thousands of other ways. And he literally represents the end of America.
You're another one of them. There is literally no way you can play this game and be genuine.
I guarantee we won't hear shit from your burner account after Nov 5th...
I don't have a burner account and my stance won't change after Nov 5th. The entire point of the article is about how Bernie is saying she is still better than Trump on the whole Israel-Gaza conflict. I am saying that's not a good enough argument to compel people to vote for her. She needs to effectively show what she wants to achieve and how she wants to achieve it. No bullshit about "Israel's right to defend itself and I support a ceasefire". Her current stance on this whole issue is not good enough. She has a lot of good policies, no doubt about that and no rational person can say she would be worse than Trump. But she is failing miserably on this topic, and that's an understatement.
It shouldn't be a contentious issue to demand better from world leaders. Especially the leader for the most powerful country in the world.
Excuse me what? Demand it after she gets voted in and can give even less shits? This is the time to demand things. I get people are scared of Trump getting elected, and rightfully so. But people still need to demand things like this. "Better than Trump" is a ridiculously shitty endorsement.
This is privilege. You are accepting that a trump second term will be "ok" for you. I know that because if it wasn't going to be ok for you, you'd throw your vote to anyone who could possibly beat him in a few days.
I've got people who won't be ok. Minorities, LGBTQ, etc who are my friends, neighbors, or even just fellow citizens. They won't be ok and I'll do everything I can to help them avoid trump in this election.
I'm not in love with harris' platform but I'm not trying to get married, I'm just trying to keep my Muslim neighbor with a tough immigration situation, or my gay cousin out of trouble.
I never accepted or advocated for Trump. I just said people should be demanding better. Saying the candidate you want to vote for is better than Trump is an incredibly low bar. That shouldn't be the only argument to use to advocate for someone.
Agreed. Chasing an electorate where the loudest shout they want more hate, which is what I (perhaps incorrectly) see happening from elsewhere in the world, is not good for the political system. It just legitimises hate.