Vote. No, really. If people actually fucking voted, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Trump won with the popular vote.
A key element to defeat things like fascism, which build themselves on the popularity of fear, is that voting can’t be free-for-all. Voting should require, or be weighed with, some sort of licensing, testing of sane mind, awareness and understanding of at least current events, review of known association with dangerous anti-society parties, etc.
There has not been an US presidential election where the president got more votes than the number of non-voters. If apathy won then it had won every single time.
That’s hardly the reason. If you had a multi-party system the voted would be even more spread out between the candidates which makes it even less likely for a candidate to get more votes than the non-voting population. However a multi-party system would significantly lessen the possibility of getting oligarchic control because you wouldn’t have to choose between 2 shitty options, you’d have to have multiple shitty choices for the shittiest one to win.
A key element to defeat things like fascism, which build themselves on the popularity of fear, is that voting can’t be free-for-all. Voting should require, or be weighed with, some sort of licensing, testing of sane mind, awareness and understanding of at least current events, review of known association with dangerous anti-society parties, etc.
This is inherently anti-democratic. Who decides who’s qualified to vote? Is it you, with your infallible understanding of every issue?
Me? Aaaahahaha lol no. If I can’t solve this problem I should also not be put in charge of what happens after the solution, ya know.
As for how to solve it: again, no idea. But that does not remove the fact that it’s an actual problem. Another option would be to allow everyone to vote but weigh the votes on what differently, but I’m sure it’s just about another flavour of the same intrinsic limitation. But it’s defo not something “anti-democratic”: for a system to actually represent and help people, it has to somehow prevent them from shoot their own legs off. If the system allows leg chopping, then those who already have an advantage due to more resources, more reach or more entrenched power, are going to have more, not less, of an advantage once legs start chopping.
Yes, we had this kind of logic before. https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test Turns out that “regulations” that restrict key democratic functions of societies are actually weaponized by tyrannical states against marginalized people.
Trump won with the popular vote.
A key element to defeat things like fascism, which build themselves on the popularity of fear, is that voting can’t be free-for-all. Voting should require, or be weighed with, some sort of licensing, testing of sane mind, awareness and understanding of at least current events, review of known association with dangerous anti-society parties, etc.
More people didn’t vote than they did for either candidate. Apathy won.
Means testing voting? What could possibly go wrong?! You do see how horrifically abusable that is, right?
There has not been an US presidential election where the president got more votes than the number of non-voters. If apathy won then it had won every single time.
Yes. And look where it’s gotten us. Oligarchic control
That’s hardly the reason. If you had a multi-party system the voted would be even more spread out between the candidates which makes it even less likely for a candidate to get more votes than the non-voting population. However a multi-party system would significantly lessen the possibility of getting oligarchic control because you wouldn’t have to choose between 2 shitty options, you’d have to have multiple shitty choices for the shittiest one to win.
The people who don’t vote don’t count on votes, period. Trump won with the popular vote.
This is inherently anti-democratic. Who decides who’s qualified to vote? Is it you, with your infallible understanding of every issue?
Me? Aaaahahaha lol no. If I can’t solve this problem I should also not be put in charge of what happens after the solution, ya know.
As for how to solve it: again, no idea. But that does not remove the fact that it’s an actual problem. Another option would be to allow everyone to vote but weigh the votes on what differently, but I’m sure it’s just about another flavour of the same intrinsic limitation. But it’s defo not something “anti-democratic”: for a system to actually represent and help people, it has to somehow prevent them from shoot their own legs off. If the system allows leg chopping, then those who already have an advantage due to more resources, more reach or more entrenched power, are going to have more, not less, of an advantage once legs start chopping.
Oops, replied to wrong comment.
Yes, we had this kind of logic before. https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test Turns out that “regulations” that restrict key democratic functions of societies are actually weaponized by tyrannical states against marginalized people.