no one fucking told me about states banning RCV during all that yapping on here about how i should VOTE THIRD PARTY OR ELSE IM COMPLICIT in the DNCs CRIMES

it may or may not be joever, very blackpilled at this moment

edit it’s actually 10 states. 5 in the past two months.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      thanks i made this in a rush and definitely could have put more details :)

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      EC is there for a reason, it’s just not used for that reason

      Imagine a candidate loyal to one of America’s enemies was voted in. The EC is there to stop that

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          it’s just not used for that reason

          Yeah, some where along the line they gained party loyalty

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        Imagine a candidate loyal to one of America’s enemies was voted in.

        A candidate who won the state-weighted national popularity contest would only be “one of America’s enemies” if the weighting was wildly off. Even then, Said candidate wouldn’t be the enemy of all Americans, just enemy of the states with the underweight majority.

        And if half of America hates the other half? Then every president is loyal to one of America’s enemies.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Idk. I think a lot of Trump guys are getting exactly what they want. And I think a lot of Biden guys really do want a Reagan Democrat on the throne.

            Saying you were hoodwinked just lets you gracefully detach from a candidate once they lose popularity.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        A constiutional monarch is a better defence against that

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            No, the problem is that they’re elected. So the winner with absolute power is the one who can scam people and rig the system into giving them it. Vs a family which legally holds all of the power and supreme military authority but delegates it to a democratic system

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              the winner with absolute power is the one who can scam people and rig the system

              You don’t think monarchs scam people or rig economic systems?

              I’m guessing you’ve never heard of Mohammad Bin Salmen.

              a family which legally holds all of the power and supreme military authority but delegates it to a democratic system

              A political fiction. The British Royals reserve the right to block legislation and routinely get their way simply by threatening to do so.

              The Saudis and the Singaporese are even more naked in their disregard for democratic rule.

              And we all know how the dictatorial governorship of Hong Kong ended. China quite literally bought the governor out.

              • Flax@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Since when was Mohammed Bin Salman a constitutional monarch? Your two examples on why constitutional monarchy is bad uses countries that aren’t constitutional monarchies.

                If we’re doing this, I may as well show how Vladimir Putin is an example of why a democratically elected president is a bad idea. The advantage with a monarch is that you’re rolling the dice every 20-30 years (70 in the case of Elizabeth II) and you know who the next person is. If they were truly evil there’d be enough time to stop them from coming up and depose them. With an elected president it’s unpredictable, every 5-10 years, and it’s not obvious who’d replace them either.

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Since when was Mohammed Bin Salman a constitutional monarch?

                  Since the King ratified the Basic Law of Governance in 1992.

                  I may as well show how Vladimir Putin is an example of why a democratically elected president is a bad idea.

                  Relabel him a Constitutional Monarch, though. Suddenly he’s a good idea again?

                  The advantage with a monarch is that you’re rolling the dice every 20-30 years (70 in the case of Elizabeth II)

                  How is that any different from a popular president operating without term limits? Or a popular party that consistently holds the majority of seats in government?

                  Is the little gold hat adding something I can’t see? Or do you just like the pomp and circumstance of royalty?

                  With an elected president it’s unpredictable

                  The French spent nearly a century jumping back and forth between popular revolution and bourbon restoration. Was that more predictable?

                  How about the War of the Roses? Or the numerous Seljuk wars of succession in Iraq and Persia? Or the Taiping Rebellion?

                  Inflexible monarchies prompted each of these social catastrophes.

                  The Roman Imperial Era was rife with instability, with Rome violently changing hands multiple times in a given year.

                  That’s far more unpredictable than a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump-Biden hand off, particularly when so much of the “deep state” doesn’t really change.