100%. If you come on to a liberal/left-leaning place like Lemmy and say things like "voting doesn't work" and "both sides" it's obvious where you stand.

Encourage your most extreme opponents that their vote doesn't work.

And you only need to look around the internet to notice the "Voting doesn't work" or "Both sides bad" bots and idiots are coming out of the woordwork again for the next US election.

"Just" voting would have stopped Trump in both 2016 and 2024. Until the opposite is proven, it is extremely stupid to not vote in 2026 or 2028 in the US from an assumption that voting alone does not work.

Unfortunatley nuance is lost on the majority of the denizens of the internet, everything is black or white here for the majority of people.

That's like buying a better car to fix the issue of travel.

Go for it! Make your voice heard.

There's communities here that ban you for arguing to vote too lol. I'd argue that's far more common in lefty spaces than liberal ones.

There's a reason why the founders of America excplicitly said that revolution not done peacefully, must be done through force. They knew, no matter how vague, just what sort of calamity was coming, because such things had struck every kingdom and nation before the US.

I love Margaret Killjoy and think she’s right when it comes to individual action here, but it’s also important that the Democrats believe we might not vote for them if they start acting like Republicans. There is zero incentive for terrible Democrats to change if all they ever hear are people shitting blood about how you have to vote for a Democrat no matter who it is.

'One vote won't matter,' said forty million people.

הדמוקרטים

have certainly said a thing or two about that

Both main candidates want ‘Greater Israel’

The opposition is generally a lot softer on Palestine issue. Democrats (8 seats) and Arab parties (19 seats) have very good policies.

Generally the center opposition parties have "reasonable" policies, Together (12 seats) is moderate and Yashar (21 seats) more or less "keep current status but remove some settlements and don't add new".

The change from ethnic cleansing and genocide as a policy/talking point is a pretty major shift and governing parties are projected to get 53 seats out of 120.

Coalition agreements are going to be pretty tough but there's hope for a centre left block with Arab parties since a lot of things that are good for Palestinians are also generally economically good policies. This is a stark contrast to working with ultra orthodox parties which cost the state a lot of issues.

Was going to make this comment. What's the new guy going to do different, exactly?

Who needs politicians when you can just have Bibi be the unofficial dictator for another century?

It really depends on what coalition gets formed since the leading opposition party only has 1/3 of the seats required for a majority.

If he works with Bibi it'll be shit but he's being voted for specifically for not being Bibi. This means a centre left coalition with either ultra orthodox or Palestinians is very likely.

Now apply that logic to dems and republicans.

It's more about who he partners with

Yes I agree. Serbia and America are not similar. Which is why the electoral success of the Serbian student movement does not mean electoralism is a viable strategy for significant political change in the united states as the post is suggesting.

Was this groundswell a risk which now replaces half of a two-party system, or do they use ballots which make third-party support safe?

Serbia uses a proportional "closed list" electoral system, which essentially means that a party internally chooses its representatives, and when you go to the ballot box, you vote for a party, rather than an individual representative. and the fact that it's proportional, rather than majoritarian (first past the post/winner takes all), means that third parties are more viable. But historically those third parties have been small, ethic minority-based parties.

According to Wikipedia: "Eligible voters vote for electoral lists, on which the registered candidates are present. A maximum of 250 candidates could be present on a single electoral list. An electoral list could be only submitted by a registered political party. To submit an electoral list, at least 10,000 valid signatures must be collected, though ethnic minority parties only need to collect 5,000 signature to qualify on ballot. At least 40 percent of candidates on electoral lists must be female."

The requirements here are fairly strict, and prior to the student list, there wasn't really a traditional opposition bloc. One likely struggled to cohere in the past, because of those requirements.

The movement to get the Student List on the ballot in the first place came out of a larger, non-electoral movement of protests and strikes against corruption, which provided a basis upon which a coherent opposition party could come together, and they could overcome signature requirements and the like.

We will have to see what sort of reforms they make. I'll be following it closely