• AlolanVulpixOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Also, encouraging liberal voters to vote for a fringe party with less than 3% of the vote, like the Green Party, leads to the right-wing party winning.

    “Vote Green Party” is a sure way to see national outcomes even further away from your ideals.

    Well voting for a political party that doesn’t support proportional representation is guaranteed to doom the movement.

    If other parties want to cater to the fair vote movement, how about they come up with more palatable policies to us, rather than have everyone race to the bottom?

    And the Green party isn’t the only party that supports proportional representation. The NDP do as well.

    • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      If other parties want to cater to the fair vote movement, how about they come up with more palatable policies to us, rather than have everyone race to the bottom?

      This isn’t well thought out. Look at what’s happened in the US as a result of this non-practical approach.

      • AlolanVulpixOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        Got any better ideas? The theory of change is a hotly discussed topic in this movement.

        If I believe that a candidate is anti democratic impeding democracy (e.g liberal/conservative), then I vote for them to avoid “splitting the vote”, then I just voted for an someone who impedes democracy.

        And yes, I do see those that don’t support proportional representation as anti democratic impeding democracy.

        The frame of reference is that supporters of proportional representation are splitting the vote, when it should be seen as everyone else being anti democratic.

        That’s just my opinion.

        • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Speaking from the US so my context may be different, but:

          One of the things that bugs me is people don’t seem to want to do anything except in the days leading up to the election. Then they want to vote for some moonshot candidate.

          To me the strategy should be a lot of hard work throughout the year, and then harm reduction as needed (eg: vote against trump). The hard work may be phone calls, canvassing, protesting, coalition building, I don’t know.

          When people do nothing political except vote for a fringe party, it seems ineffective. Maybe even counter productive.

          I mean, I’m lazy and being strangled by capitalism too, so I kind of get it.

          • AlolanVulpixOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            18 hours ago

            When people do nothing political except vote for a fringe party

            Again, voting for a “fringe” party that might advance proportional representation, is always better than any party that won’t advance proportional representation.

            Besides, Canada is not like the US. We do elect Green and NDP candidates, and they’ve formed government on occasion (e.g., the BC government as of now). It’s hard to say they are fringe, when it’s just not the reality.

            And even if these are “fringe” parties, it’s not a “fringe” idea to ensure that every vote counts, as it would under proportional representation.

            • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              16 hours ago

              That’s incorrect if the party you voted for has no chance of actually bringing about proportional representation, and you end up with a party wildly opposite to your ideals in office.

        • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          It’s a very entitled viewpoint; thinking “They need to please me” rather than “what’s realistically best for everyone overall?”.

          A better idea may be to keep the leftmost VIABLE party in office and work with those representatives from the bottom up to implement incremental change.

          Parties who don’t manage to get in office can make no change at all.

          • AlolanVulpixOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            18 hours ago

            It’s a very entitled viewpoint; thinking “They need to please me”

            Yeah, that’s how representative democracy is supposed to work. Candidates are supposed to cater to their constituent’s needs. You have it the other way around.

            It’s wildly entitled to think that a candidate, who hasn’t done any work to earn my vote, should earn my vote. That’s extremely delusional thinking.

            what’s realistically best for everyone overall

            What’s best for everyone overall is a strong democracy. I’m not going to vote for a candidate that won’t advance that priority, and neither should anybody else.

            Parties who don’t manage to get in office can make no change at all.

            And parties that don’t promise any meaningful change also don’t make any change at all.


            I’ve been down this conversation before. I refuse to vote for a party that doesn’t advance proportional representation. That’s entirely in my right to do so. Do whatever mental gymnastics you want to believe that it is me the problem who is preventing the advancement of proportional representation and democracy.

            • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              18 hours ago

              These talking points were widely and aggressively deployed before the US presidential election, leading to a Trump win.

              If you don’t recognize that reality, you are encouraging a similar outcome.

              • AlolanVulpixOPM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                17 hours ago
                1. What happened to just providing feedback to the infographic? Not that I’m against other topics of discussion, but seems a bit like an ambush.
                2. Why haven’t you responded to any of my points other than saying: that’s how Trump wins, or that’s how you split the vote? I’m seriously entertaining the points you’ve brought up, but you’ve barely even acknowledged any of mine. How is that a productive discussion? Ever heard the phrase: talking at someone rather than to someone?
                3. I’d be happy to support candidates provided they have good policies. You are trying to pressure the wrong kind of person, when you should be applying pressure to our political parties, and other voters (e.g., anti-proportional representation). In applying pressure to a PR-supporting voter, to vote non-PR, it’s not a surprise when that trends towards non-PR policies.
                4. We actually do have a viable PR-supporting alternative: the NDP. They’ve formed government on several occasions, so this is not really comparable to the US.