it is Mr. Biden’s reinvigoration of the government’s role as the nation’s most important investor that may endure as a turning point in the nation’s political and economic history.

Investments, like saplings, do not yield immediate fruit, and Mr. Biden has struggled to generate public enthusiasm for these long-term strategies.

  • thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s a function both of poverty and the lack of quality public education. Most don’t understand how elections are run, and most don’t understand that in order to change our two party paradigm, they need to change the local election process. FPTP needs to be flushed down the unclean toilet of history and we need to implement RCV or STAR. Both will be complicated and either choice will require thorough education of the public, but it’s the first step towards breaking the deadlock of the Democratic or Republican parties.

    • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am highly unconvinced by STAR. The problem with STAR, as I see it, is that there is no cost to giving a candidate a higher or lower ranking, except that they may beat a more preferred candidate. It’s like Amazon ratings, the most simplistic, extreme voters win. The voters who carefully decide whether a candidate should get two or three stars have a subtle influence, while voters who go “yeah that guy’s great, five stars!” and “no not her, terrible, zero stars!” clearly have an outsized impact, determining the finalists.

      With a fully ranked ballot, to vote one candidate higher, you have to vote another lower. I have not seen any convincing argument that any system is better than STV/IRV ranked choice.