google: how do I change my vote?
3rd party voters didn’t swing a single swing state. That is a demonstrable fact. It’s time to stop punching down.
People will, in a single breath, tell people to exercise their right to vote in democracy and also that voting for the person/party that best represents them is wrong if it’s not a Big Party.
The issue in the US is that it IS against your political interests to vote for anyone but the least bad option.
The first past the post system simply doesn’t allow for a diverse political landscape.
deleted by creator
Thanks for your input, but it is not a question about who benefits or what a person aught to do, but a simple logical conclusion:
For simplicities’ sake, let’s say there are 10 people voting in an election with 2 parties. Each party has 4 unwavering loyalists and the remaining 2 people’s votes depend on current events/issues. The two parties mainly take turns in government due to these swing voters.
Now enter a third party. Party 3 addresses issues that are somewhat relevant to voters of party 2 and mostly uninteresting to voters of party 1. In the next election, some voters will most likely drift from party 2 to party 3:
- Party 1: 5 Votes
- Party 2: 3 Votes
- Party 3: 2 Votes
Splitting votes between too somewhat similar parties guarantees a win for the opposite party on the spectrum. Coalitions are not possible under first past the post, so party 2 and 3 teaming up to dethrone party 1 is not an option. This continues until either another party on the opposite end of the spectrum joins the race and diminishes the votes for party 1 or one of party 2 or 3 absorbs the other.
Therefore, it is in the voter’s best interest to vote strategically against what they don’t want and not for what they do want.
Usually in a democracy the people are represented by parties which they align most with. In my country I can vote for one of seven, which get proportionally represented by a number of seats in parliament. The winning party rarely has more than 50% of the vote, if they do, all the losing parties will become the opposition, and if they don’t they have to combine with another party to have at least 50% of the votes. This assures that the winning party or coalition still has to negotiate their position and decisions every single day. If one party would want the power the current administration in the US has they would probably need 80 or 90% of the votes.
Is it complicated? Yes. Does it make sure the people are represented? Also yes.
In the US if a state votes 51% one way, 100% of the electoral votes go to that party, causing a reality where a party could get less than a majority vote and still win. This alone is proof that the people are not fairly represented and isn’t a fair democracy. In local elections you’ll have a much more nuanced choice but at a federal level it’s antiquated to say the least.
I will say that in a fair democracy, you should vote for your representative, in the US you have no such choice. Be it by living in one state counts as more than another, or the fact that a third party has little to no representation post election.
Just as a side note, those models are not invulnerable to manipulation. In my country it’s the same, but the central government is ruling from one of the flimsiest coalition governments, with the same lack of power that goes along that dumbasses still claim they are solely responsible for. The opposition claims they ‘won’ because they got more votes than any other party (which should have also made it easier for them to form their coalition and they weren’t able to) and now it is getting so bad and stupid (and troll factory brigaded) that people getting convinced by the rhetoric are trying to pass off the US electoral system as a success story.
It provides more representation, but it does not provide infallibility. I think we have the technology today to do considerably better than what we had several centuries back - in fact, to a large extent we could be voting ourselves on key issues instead of letting it fall back to representatives and false promises if we wanted to. The biggest problem isn’t that people in a democracy aren’t on equal grounds when grasping different issues and yet they can be radicalized to vote out of rhetoric more than those who would and should be more informed. I think we could have better democracies if we shifted to meritocracies, where you could vote on issues only if you certify you were more informed and the history, reality, and minutiae that govern those issues through exams. But that would also create a system that could be gamed.
Any system can be corrupt, and in democracies it’s not just the political candidates but society as a whole when it becomes complacent, ignorant, yet loud and willing to break the system for those that manipulate then into doing it.
Yea, and I would never claim it’s perfect, there are no perfect systems. But one of the most powerful nations being that vulnerable to manipulation is something to witness.
Yeah, that’s right. You have the freedom to make bad choices and the government can’t stop you. But other people can still make fun of you. People calling you dumb because of your bad decisions isn’t a violation of your rights.
Voting in your best interests is dumb, and people should mock you for it. Got it.
It doesn’t matter who you vote for, just go vote.
Yeah it does. Don’t vote for Nazis
Corrected. Your vote doesn’t count if you vote for Nazis. Don’t be a literal Hitler.
In 2000 they 100% did and we’re still paying for that shit.
The problem isn’t that people voted for Jill Stein. The problem is not enough people voted for Jill Stein.
The left is so broken in this country that we can’t even get a candidate to 5%! And yet, we’re supposed to stop Trump?
You know what 5% of the electorate could do?
Ensure the GOP loses every general election and participate in primaries to move the Dems to the left.
That’s how you make change in our system. Not by throwing away votes.
People have been trying to move the Dems to the left for decades, and look at what we have now.
They’ve been trying by bitching about the party every couple years when the primaries they don’t participate in select the wrong candidates.
That was my first presidential election. Naive year 2000 me thought “Oh wow this is a huge obvious problem, and Australia already fixed it! It’ll be a part of the Democratic platform by 2004.”
To this day, I vote for any Democrat who supports ranked choice voting (or any clone-independent voting system).
I’m gonna love it when all your guys excuses run out and you’re finally going to have to answer to yourselves.
I won’t care then though. I’ll probably be in a camp somewhere. but I’ll be thinking of you all 😶 alot.
Rofl, victim complex much? “Punching down” like you’re some repressed minority for having shitty prioritization skills. Jfc
Third party voters are in fact a repressed minority
They are the minority
And their beliefs are repressed with constant anti-third party voting sentiments
So working to change this situation, 3rd parties contested every house and senate seat. Right?
What are you asking? If third party voters want to contest all congressional seats? Or if there is a third party candidate who contested congressional seats?
No matter what you are asking, what party are you asking about? 3rd party isn’t a party itself, there are no general 3rd party beliefs and actions. Are you asking about the libertarian party, the largest third party by registered voters? Or the Green Party who had Jill Stein take the most 3rd party votes this year? Or some other party?
You want change. But a president alone cannot achieve that. A president needs house and senate support.
By building a mandate in these two chambers, 3rd party’s can start to drive change. But only if they contest the seats.
You’re right, but voting third-party for presidency and your own states’ congressmen are not mutually exclusive. You may vote third-party for both.
Even without a supporting legislative branch, a third-party president may have influence through vetoes alone. Presidential vetoes on bills have historically had high success rates to get congressional bills denied. There is also always the off-chance that something like H.R.5140 gets passed, and a lot of politically relevant seats become available for a third-party president to assign bodies into without question. Not likely, but nothing will ever even have the chance to change if you continue to vote for the primary two parties
I agree with your premises.
But without contesting house and senate seats, we’ll…
This couldn’t have been cornier if you’d said it’s harder to come out as conservative nowadays than as gay. Do better.
Say something of substance
“i’m oppressed because of my political opinions” grow the hell up. oppression is when people target you for something about yourself you can’t change. oppression because of political views is just people telling you you’re an asshole and you refusing to listen
Nobody said oppressed. Repressed. The word is repressed, as in all beliefs that don’t fall in line with the two primary parties are repressed.
are your beliefs being repressed? or are people just telling you not to waste your vote and risk a trump victory?
no self respecting leftist will shut up about how you can’t vote your way out of fascism and you need to be doing more. come on. do better.
Right, because alternative candidates definitely aren’t discriminated against as far as ballot access or getting into debates or…
did you even read my comment?
Dont you know?
The people who say they dont want to support genocide but actively choose the worst of the genocide-related options are the real victims here.
Did any Trump voters actually say “genocide”? The ones I’ve met call it “the war”.
Its so hilarious how this ridiculously toxic culture around blaming third party was developed, worked on for months, and then when it came time, the impact of third parties was so utterly irrelevant as to be laughable.
There’s gotta be some way to blame the left for Trump winning. Look harder!
doesn’t that mean it worked?
No, it was just part of a broader culture of infantalism demonstrated by Democratic apologists. There was no there there. Just people desperate for something to blame for their incompetence.
but like… if everyone is saying “don’t vote third party”, and the amount of third party votes significantly drops as a result, isn’t this what the result would look like?
There is a term for the act of only looking for evidence that confirms your bias. If the “strategy” worked, then why isn’t Kamala Harris president?
And if that wasn’t the goal of the strategy, what point is it that you think was being made in the first place?
i have no idea what the strategy of the us democratic party was, I’m just reflecting on what i’ve on social media over the past month or so (a constant barrage of “don’t vote third party”) and comparing it to the results (very few people voting third party). of course there’s no way to know how much of that was due to said barrage, but we can for sure say that the people telling people to vote third party failed.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the leftists who switched to voting Democratic this election were dwarfed by the Democrats who didn’t vote or even voted for Trump.
So they succeeded at what they were trying to do, but it was of negligible benefit.
probably. the actual demographics shifts don’t make it over here, only the final numbers.
The real beef was with stay home single EDIT issue folks who would otherwise be Dem voters.
Edit for clarity: the above group are historical, nominally Dem voters, who stayed home abnormally this election.
3rd party “voices” were annoying because they only punched at Dems, never at republicans. Interestingly, a few of them migrated to libertarian and conservative instances now
Don’t blame the people staying home. Blame the Democrats for doing nothing to earn those votes but say “Orange Man Bad”. They did the exact same thing in 2016. Democrats ran on maintaining the status quo at a time when no one is happy with the status quo.
The Harris campaign should have campaigned on issues that would attract progressives and others on the left. Instead they tried to get conservatives to leave their cult by touting the endorsement of Dick fucking Cheney and his incredibly unpopular daughter and saying they’ll close the borders and continue funding Netanyahu’s genocide. It’s like Harris didn’t want to win.
If Democrats want to win they need to stop being Republicans.
Edit but in the spirit of conversation: Biden AND Harris are lame candidates that absolutely only maintain the status quo. As you say, voters are unhappy with that.
Edit restructure
I disagree with the conclusion that OMB isn’t valid reasoning. But it’s just one dudes opinion that I’ve laid out in the thread.
Orange man bad was more then enough to pick a rock with a smiley face on it as alternative
People will learn the consequences, regardless of what brought them in our kept them home.
If folks fundamentally can’t play out the math on 2 choices in a FPTP where one is a serial rapist, anti abortion candidate, who is on record for wanting to accelerate Gaza, then I dunno what to say on that. “Status quo” starts looking pretty shiny, which is terrible, but the world we live in.
But now we have trump, and a lot of folks get to say “they didn’t attract me”
Orange man bad was more then enough to pick a rock with a smiley face on it as alternative
It’s a logical argument and it’s a correct argument. Unfortunately it’s demonstrably not an effective argument, especially when it’s all you’re doing. The same thing happened in 2016 with Clinton thinking she was owed votes because Trump would be (and was, and will be again) a disaster for the US. Yet they still went with the same strategy anyway.
I say this as someone who did make the “correct” choice of voting blue despite my moral objections to a lot of what she was saying. We will now all see the consequences of only barely trying to win an election against fascists.
I am aligned with you here. Well put.
To be clear, I have no love for the dnc or their strategies. I am not championing them as a model. Other commenters seem to think I’m simping for “blue maga” or some other shit.
I’ve consistently argued for harm reduction in a limited outcome system.
I agree with the harm reduction strategy, but I also understand people being apathetic with the choices they’re presented.
Of course this means people should be more active and now is the time to start really pushing for ranked choice voting so we can maybe do something about the dominance of the two-party system.
Screw trying to convince Democrats they need to start looking left. Force them to with the threat of new, actually progressive, parties.
Bro you do words real good. Your closing statement is gold.
Edit to be clear: I strongly agree with their comment I just wrote it silly.
Imo that work to build candidates start right now, and to circle back my issue with third party voices, they are crickets until right before he election
It’s a logical argument and it’s a correct argument. Unfortunately it’s demonstrably not an effective argument.
The logical summation I derive from this statement is: Blame the voters, as they committed a stupid and illogical act.
The only reasonable explanation for 2016 is that most people assumed Trump had no chance. There is no reasonable explanation for 2024.
I can see how you’d arrive at that conclusion (mostly by ignoring everything else I said), but my point was really that Harris needed a better argument than just that. She never gave people a reason to vote for her rather than just against Trump. That caused 14 million people who previously voted Democrat to stay home.
To a lot of apathetic people we were presented with 2 very similar choices neither of whom gives a shit about the working class. So a lot of people figured “why bother?” and I don’t blame them for that. I blame Democrats for abandoning the working class and catering to corporate donors and conservatives. That’s not even mentioning doing nothing to stem the flow of genocide supplies to Israel (which caused a lot of Muslim voters to stay home).
So sure, you can blame voters, but it makes more sense to blame the campaign that wasn’t even trying to win.
You’re working from a flawed premise. Turnout for this election was high, even among Democrats. Not as high as 2020, but very high.
Not as high as 2020. The nearest election. With trump in it.
This is all just the same toxic projection that I’ve been pointing out in this thread.
You want to blame third parties but there is basically 0, practically negative evidence for it.
No, I haven’t discussed 3rd parties at all in my comment. I said 3rd party “voices”, reading comprehension meaning “commenters/online personalities” because I noted their movement to new instances.
Edit also note I had a typo in my above “single party” to 'single issue"
Splendid discussion as usual dingdong. Twist then pull up
What do you expect when you just keep putting the same performative toxicity on display?
So much assuming.
My “toxicity” are legitimate concerns to not get trump, who will ramp everything up. Well look who’s here now.
As I said, single issue stay homes, and “alternative” voices that actually only served to strike at Dems are issues I believe shifted the narrative and may have influenced the election.
I made a thread to discuss other influences beyond just punching down at 3rd party platforms.
Turnout in 2024 was about the same as 2020. It wasn’t Democrats staying home. Trump simply swayed more voters.
I’m specifically referring to otherwise active voters, who are historically punchcard democrats. There are many other types of voters, but I specifically grouped a sample that is my discussion.
What’s your evidence that Democrats “stayed home abnormally this election”?
Well election is over, the time to start building up a third party is NOW
Didn’t Trump basically promise “no more elections if I win”?
Oh yeah, he did. A few times, even.
People letting him do it is what’s gonna make it come true.
yeah! go on out there and protest the fascism we had an opportunity to stop!
oh, you want me to help? I’m uhhh…busy with uhhhh stopping the spread of fascism online!
– every 3rd party voter I’ve ever had interactions with
So, what are you doing?
Then stop complaining about third parties forevermore. If you honestly believed that was our last election, then focus on direct action.
I’m not American, bruh.
I’m just reporting what your president elect has said.
Oh, yeah, you’re right. Let’s give up, then.
The last panel should be the deer bumming around on the couch instead of voting, with some kind of line like "the trees just don’t excite me’.
Oh I’m sure the comments on this post will be nice and calm
every lemmy.ml user when a joke is made at their expense.
I’ll never understand why people refuse to blame the powerful rich people running the Democrats for not drawing people in with good leftist policy.
First mistake is believing Democrats are leftist. They’re also right of moderate, but not quite as right as Republicans. Libertarians are also not really on the spectrum as we know it either. We have no liberal parties that are capable of making a difference.
“Libertarians” are absolutely on a simple right/left scale, and it’s the right.
They’re economically right but socially left.
No, they aren’t, and they never will be while their philosophy is based on the thoughts of billionaire simps, race theorists, modern slavers, and pedophiles like Mises and Rothbard.
A socially left libertarian is called an anarchist.
Because they’re not here arguing with us.
Because leftist policy doesn’t bring anyone to the polls other than the right. Only 30% of eligible voters bothered to show up to polls and vote for a black/Indian woman over a Hitler wannabe. That means that a full 70% of eligible voters said they were fine with, or were actively choosing, a child raping felon, who outright said he wanted to execute anyone who ever opposed him and praised Hitler’s generals.
You can god damn well bet that the people running the Democratic party learned a lesson, and that lesson is that so called liberals will always come up with an excuse not to vote no matter how dire the situation, but conservatives will show up even for made up shit that has been repeatedly proven to be wrong.
And if you thought the Dems were conservative before… well just wait and see how much farther right they are going to go now chasing the only votes that bother to show up to vote.
I don’t understand why the USA doesn’t use preferential voting like Australia does: https://www.chickennation.com/voting/
Instead of just picking one candidate/party, you number them based on your preferences. First all the #1 votes are counted. If no party gets the majority (over 50%) of votes, the party with the least number of votes is removed, and for everyone that voted for them, their #2 votes are used. Repeat until someone wins.
Independents (what you call “third-party” in the USA) can win, and any party that gets over 4% of the #1 votes gets election funding from the government (a fixed amount per vote).
We’re too corrupt to allow the competition :)
There’s a movement for that, but it’s been moving very slow.
No party should ever have over 50% of power. Hell, no party should have more than 30%. Different parties should work together always to ensure one single party can never project it’s power over those that don’t want it
deleted by creator
IRV, or RCV as it’s being sold here, has a lot of problems.
It’s the only voting system in existence where ranking someone higher on the ballot can cause them to lose the election.
Australia gets around most of the problems of IRV by just not telling people any information about the vote except the winners.
Also you only use straight IRV for a single part of your government.
The US would use it for every part of our government. It would be a shit show.
Which is why RCV has been banned in half a dozen states.
Now, there are better voting systems. Systems that live up to the hype.
STAR is the single best voting system designed to date.
As a cardinal voting system, it’s actually immune to the Spoiler Effect.
It’s the only voting system in existence where ranking someone higher on the ballot can cause them to lose the election.
Interesting… Do you have an example of this?
https://electionscience.org/research-hub/the-limits-of-ranked-choice-voting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_responsiveness_paradox#Specific_examples
We’ve seen it happen in actual elections, as shown in the Wikipedia link.
RCV is just a flawed system, which is expected for something created by a couple of guys 150+ years ago.
Disclaimer: I wrote this all for myself not to change your mind or argue. Helps if I write down my thoughts and I don’t see a problem sharing. Feel free to discuss if you like.
35 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob
35 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice
30 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob
Vs.
41 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob
29 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice
30 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob
Alice wins
Vs.
Carol wins
Say you have:
41 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic
29 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican
30 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican
If those 29 voters couldn’t vote Third-party they would vote Democratic. So when the Third-party candidate is knocked out, their votes should favor their second pick. Democratic wins 59-41.
If it was:
41 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic
29 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic
30 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican
Which makes more since on why the 6 votes moved to Republican because Republican was their second choice.
Then Republicans win 70-30.
In America you’d have 4 basic senarios
25 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic
25 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican
25 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic
25 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican
In RCV, Third-party wins.
Let’s say this
30 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic
25 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican
20 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic
25 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican
Third-party still wins
40 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic
10 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican
10 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic
40 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican
It would be a tie
45 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic
10 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican
5 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic
40 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican
It would still be a tie
45 voters: Republican > Third-party > Democratic
5 voters: Third-party > Democratic > Republican
10 voters: Third-party > Republican > Democratic
40 voters: Democratic > Third-party > Republican
Republicans win
Let’s change it to this:
35 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob
35 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol
30 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob
Vs.
41 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob
29 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol
30 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob
Alice wins
Vs.
Alice wins
They couldn’t make their whole point if you just switched Alice and Carol. And it makes much more sense that someone with Alice second would change it to Alice first.
But when 29 votes still hold Alice as last, it does have some weight.
Something just seems off about it and it’s because they cherry picked a senario that would work for their point.
Alice > Carol > Bob
Alice > Bob > Carol
Bob > Alice > Carol
Bob > Carol > Alice
Carol > Alice > Bob
Carol > Bob > Alice
There are 6 ways to vote and they leave out half of them. Then they make Carol supporters favor Alice as their second choice.
20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob
15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol
15 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol
20 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice
20 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob
10 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice
Carol eliminated, +10 Bob +20 Alice. Alice would win.
If 5 voters from Bob > Alice > Carol were moved to Alice > Bob > Carol
20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob
20 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol
10 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol
20 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice
20 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob
10 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice
Alice would win
What if everyone from Bob > Alice > Carol moved to vote for Alice > Bob > Carol
20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob
30 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol
0 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol
20 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice
20 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob
10 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice
It would be a tie.
In bold are the three they selected:
20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob
15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol
15 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol
20 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice
10 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob
20 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice
5 voters from Bob > Carol > Alice moved to Alice > Carol > Bob. Just like their example.
26 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob
15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol
15 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol
14 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice
10 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob
20 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice
Alice 41
Bob 28
Carol 30
Bob is eliminated.
15 votes goes to Alice. 14 goes to Carol.
Alice still wins.
But they set it up like:
20 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob
15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol
0 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol
35 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice
10 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob
20 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice
5 voters from Bob > Carol > Alice moved to Alice > Carol > Bob. Just like their example.
26 voters: Alice > Carol > Bob
15 voters: Alice > Bob > Carol
0 voters: Bob > Alice > Carol
29 voters: Bob > Carol > Alice
10 voters: Carol > Alice > Bob
20 voters: Carol > Bob > Alice
Then when Bob is eliminated all 29 votes go to Carol.
Then they say “It’s unfair that Carol wins”. When in reality those 29 people would prefer Carol over Alice.
RCV might have some flaws but that article has some flaws.
I haven’t looked at the others. I might later.
Edit:Formatting
The first article is from someone who wants to save RCV, despite that one flaw that they’ve drilled into.
The problem is that it’s a known attack vector, the Wikipedia article talks about how it was used intentionally by a political party in 2005 in Germany to effectively steal an additional seat in their parliament.
My second link is a deeper dive into more of RCV’s many flaws. Because why stop at monotonicity? Seriously, the fact that increasing support can cause a candidate to lose, and not just lose but elect the worst choice, is insane.
That fact that there are more flaws, just as game breaking, means we should all follow the example of the Marquis de Condorcet, the guy who invented RCV, abandoned it because he saw how broken it was.
Then you have the lying liars at FairVote saying that the Condorcet criterion doesn’t matter in elections.
The Condorcet criterion is that if you were to hold a series of one on one elections between all candidates, the winner of those should be the same winner of your election system. RCV fails this in most elections, which is why Condorcet abandoned it.
It wasn’t until about 30 years after Condorcet’s death that an Englishman revived the voting method, but added a proportional twist. It still had all the flaws that Condorcet wrote about, but Condorcet was French, and lost the political games of the French Revolution, so he was mostly ignored.
As a side note, the political writings of Condorcet should be required reading. The guy wrote this in 1790
‘The rights of men stem exclusively from the fact that they are sentient beings, capable of acquiring moral ideas and of reasoning upon them. Since women have the same qualities, they necessarily also have the same rights. Either no member of the human race has any true rights, or else they all have the same ones; and anyone who votes against the rights of another, whatever his religion, colour or sex, automatically forfeits his own.’
Thanks for the links. I appreciate it! Now I understand the issue.
What if the deer lives in one of the 43 states that do not matter?
Supposedly if every single liberal-leaning person were to vote Democrat, they (edit: some of them) would have become swing states.
But I think it’s more that people just want an easy target to punch, which makes people feel more in control. Like, it’s not our glorious leader™'s fault, it’s “those” people, over there. And the number of Internet searches for what happened to Joe Biden on the very morning of the election should legit be worrisome to us all imho…
Ngl, I was kinda impressed by storing told about Kamala’s campaigning and dedication. (Or was that simply part of the spin machine?) Maybe she could - no, surely she could have done better? But she also gave it as much as “the establishment” would allow, and came up short.
So now we can either roll up our sleeves and try to fix things… oh who is anyone kidding we’ll just take whatever handouts we are given, as always.
Is this why coffee is often served as molten lava? Because all yall blow on your coffee before every sip? I despise all of you. I just want to drink coffee like any other drink
This is one of my favorite things about using an Aeropress. I use half the water to brew the concentrate, which will be just off boil, but then the water I use to dilute to final strength can be any temp I want, so it is immediately drinkable. There are many other advantages, especially if you like to experiment, but this one to me is huge.
So the implication of this meme is to starting shooting minorities, so they get back in line with voting for the party.
If that is the kind of “jokes” the “progressive” center makes, it is no wonder, that the fascists win the election. Seems like it does not matter, whether there is a D or an R next to the presidents name. The US will build concentration camps either way.
