• 0 Posts
  • 184 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 29th, 2024

help-circle





  • Many US states got their capital chosen because when the territory became a state it happened to be the closest to the centre of population of the state. Jefferson City, MO is a good example of this. The three major population centres at the time were St. Louis, Kansas City and (to a much lesser extent) Joplin. So Jefferson City was right by the centre of population.

    Meanwhile, most European capitals (including at the provincial level - think German states or French regions) came to their state by being the capitals and cultural centres of feudal states, which gives them more depth.

    I don’t mean any offense to Iowa (this time), but there’s not a huge amount going on there. It exists almost exclusively as an administrative division.










  • That’s hard to say. With the current makeup of the supreme court, it’s likely they’d simply declare any law protecting abortion rights as unconstitutional because mumble mumble and get away with it. But what’s preventing them from doing even that is that Republicans (thanks in large part to politicised redrawing of district boundaries) have a majority in one of the two legislative bodies, so the Democrats couldn’t pass that protection regardless.

    So likely the minimum that’s needed to codify abortion rights would be a Democratic majority in both legislative houses and a Democratic president.

    On the topic of coalitions: The US doesn’t have coalitions in the ways many other countries have, partially because of the way the president is elected. Voters have a separate item on their ballot to elect (electors who will then vote in the electoral college for) the president. The way this occurs is through first past the post, where the largest portion of the votes (even if a minority) gets all the electors in that state (except in Nebraska and New Hampshire, where the state breaks it into districts). I’m in Michigan, for example. In 2016, Donald Trump got 47.5% of the vote in Michigan to Hillary Clinton’s 47.3% and thus got all 16 of Michigan’s electoral votes (out of 538). Had 11,000 more people voted for Clinton (let’s say, by not voting for the Green party), she would have won Michigan’s electoral votes, which is a 3% swing in the electoral college, but given that most states are pretty much guaranteed to go one way or the other (e.g. Indiana is a safe Republican state while neighbouring Illinois is a safe Democratic state), those 11,000 votes would be massively influential. This is why “swing states” are so stupidly pivotal in US elections.

    So because of all of that, there’s not an option for the Greens to join a coalition, even if they wanted to (which I don’t think they would, as the US Green party is currently under the control of a Russian asset and it’s well known that Putin wants a Trump victory).

    The American electoral system is ridiculously, stupidly backwards and basically designed to empower certain people over others. If there were a parliamentary democracy here the US, and probably the world (given the US’s love for foreign intervention), would be much better off.




  • lengau@midwest.socialtoMemes@lemmy.mlDating apps be like
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Voting third party is telling the system that you don’t have a preference between the two candidates who have even the slightest chance of winning. It sucks that there’s such constrained communication one can do (and we need a better voting system), but in the short term, the three options I’ve listed are what you have the options to communicate.


  • lengau@midwest.socialtoMemes@lemmy.mlDating apps be like
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    Which of my points have you “debunked?” Lol

    I haven’t had to, as all you’ve done so far is repeat already-debunked, faux-leftist points that enable fascists.

    You’ve been whitewashing genocide and fascism, without meaningfully backing yourself up.

    Ahh, more accusations. Genocide is bad. Fascism is bad. Thus my question: why are you advocating for actions that will lead to more genocide and fascism?

    You started directly insulting because you had no points other than claiming that genocide isn’t that bad if the Dems do it.

    Lying about what I’ve said in a written forum isn’t effective. Once again, and in larger font:

    Genocide is always bad, and more genocide is worse.

    So why are you advocating for actions that fall in the “more genocide” camp?


  • lengau@midwest.socialtoMemes@lemmy.mlDating apps be like
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    What have I avoided?

    Well immediately above I asked:

    Why are you encouraging people to do things that will make it more likely for fascists to win and destroy what little leftist organizing there is in America?

    You have asserted that the actions you advocate won’t do that, but when I explain how they do exactly that, you simply make the assertion again. When that fails, you attempt to equivocate. But when I point out that more genocide is more harmful than less genocide, you simply ignore my statements and make your assertions again.

    That’s not helpful. It might convince some people, but only in the same way that repeating a lie enough makes some people believe it.