Image Transcription:

A tweet from the George Takei Twitter account which states:

"A Democrat was in the White House when my family was sent to the internment camps in 1941. It was an egregious violation of our human and civil rights.

It would have been understandable if people like me said they’d never vote for a Democrat again, given what had been done to us.

But being a liberal, being a progressive, means being able to look past my own grievances and concerns and think of the greater good. It means working from within the Democratic party to make it better, even when it has betrayed its values.

I went on to campaign for Adlai Stevenson when I became an adult. I marched for civil rights and had the honor of meeting Dr. Martin Luther King. I fought for redress for my community and have spent my life ensuring that America understood that we could not betray our Constitution in such a way ever again.

Bill Clinton broke my heart when he signed DOMA into law. It was a slap in the face to the LGBTQ community. And I knew that we still had much work to do. But I voted for him again in 1996 despite my misgivings, because the alternative was far worse. And my obligation as a citizen was to help choose the best leader for it, not to check out by not voting out of anger or protest.

There is no leader who will make the decision you want her or him to make 100 percent of the time. Your vote is a tool of hope for a better world. Use it wisely, for it is precious. Use it for others, for they are in need of your support, too."

End Transcription.

The last paragraph I find particularly powerful and something more people really should take into account.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
21 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

You’re starting out with the wrong assumption in your question. The question should be “why is it that there are only two choices?” And the answer is: because the voting system laid out in the constitution makes it an inevitability.

It’s not a coincidence that the countries in Europe with many parties have a different type of system. Statistical models demonstrate that their many parties and our two parties are a natural consequence of how our voting system works.

It’s bad enough being stuck in the situation we are, but wrongly attributing the cause to a vast conspiracy, involving both parties working together, just leads to the wrong conclusions about what to do about it.

In reality, voting third party instead of the party you most align with just helps the party you least align with. The GOP backs third party candidates that might attract liberal voters for a reason.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

The system doesn’t actually require any collaboration to eventually become a two-party race. It’s pretty much statistically assured if voters behave rationally, but with limited information.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

And? Do you want people to vote for Trump then?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Or maybe, just maybe, there is a third way? When it comes to politics, americans are as defeatist as russians are.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

What is defeatist about it? It is about constantly participating in the system to make sure your views are still considered.

It means participating in primaries to make sure some of your candidates get picked even if others are going to lose. For instance, I’m going to vote in the primary because it will have a major impact on choosing a Senator of my state even if Biden is going to be the Presidential nominee.

It means choosing candidates in the general election that you can at least try to influence with protests and other actions after the election. I’d rather have a percentage of what I want politically done than nothing.

The alternative seems to be not to participate, which feels more defeatist.

permalink
report
parent
reply