Do you think one citizen one vote would address many of the evils - redistricting, etc.?

In your analogy, both parties want to steer the bus into the shredder, but one will do it in a way that kills fewer people, which includes sparing you. Forgive me if “Some of you will die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make” isn’t a compelling political message.

I demand better than a party that asks me to allow the state to slaughter my most vulnerable brothers and sisters in order to secure my own safety. None of us are free until we all are.

I voted in the primaries, but this isn't true. The winner is decided beforehand and the election is just a formality.

The last time I voted for a non-establishment candidate who won the popular vote, the DNC ignored the election results and gave the nomination to their preferred candidate instead. That's why we got Hillary instead of Bernie in 2016.

I've been an activist for decades and during that time I've grown incredibly cynical. A lesson that gets repeatedly taught is the vast majority of the loud voices in a movement are smug cowards.

They don't actually care all that much about their cause: you never see them putting in anything resembling work. Sure, they'll throw a few bucks at a cause, maybe they'll attend rallies or protests. But they disapear as soon as anything that requires actual effort, risk, or serious time commitment comes up.

And they sure as hell won't make hard choices that might impinge on their idealism. They don't know how to and are unwilling to get their hands dirty and actually fight -- moral purity is more important than ugly, imperfect, but net positive change.

They'll scream about how they're waiting for a perfect solution ... but they can't be bothered to bust their ass to make it happen. They're dead weight.

Maybe we just care about different things, but I've been voting for progressives for decades and can't point to much of anything I've seen fixed. If anything, I've watched the world at large and our politics get worse.

I still think there's some value in voting (see the above re: choosing the enemy we will face), but I think it's a mistake to expect or wait for politicians to save us. We have to build a better world for ourselves and take care of each other in the places and ways that we can without waiting for an invitation or asking permission.

Brit here, can confirm voting also breaks things. A lot of people voted for Brexit as a "stick it to the establishment" and thinking they won't do it anyway because voting doesn't actually do change anything.

Please Americans reading this vote!

Well said. Voting is your BARE MINIMUM civic duty, you can't act like ur gonna tear the system down and all this shit if u can't even go speak ur mind in the booths.

But not voting, or voting for fascists, absolutely will never fix anything.

I think there are more accelerationists on this platform than you might realize.

I was a ranked choice voting fan, but this swayed me towards STAR voting. RCV would still be far better then First-past-the-post of course.

That's just factually inaccurate. In 1776 some guys said the states get to choose how to handle voting. Thebstates still don'thave to donthat, and some don't. Alaska has been in the news nust this week because its ranked-choice voting keeps the 2 Sullivans from creating a spoiler effect from voter confusion.

And even then, Senators weren't directly elected until 1914 - prior to the 17th Amendment they were appointed by the State legislatures.

states aren't forced to use first past the post voting, they choose to.

I'm afraid I can't do useful.

They are spending money on both sides.

AIPAC spent $60M on the Michigan primary alone. George and Alex Soros dropped a full $100M this election cycle. Crypto billionaire Chris Larsen was spreading his $65M all over the board. Michael Bloomberg allocated $80 million just during September and October 2026 to support Democratic candidates. This, after he'd dropped a cool billy trying to buy out the 2020 primary. Tom Steyer put up $213 million this year, for California Governor.

There's no shortage of liberal billionaire mega-donors.

All of these are different people you are describing.

It's almost as if they're both bad: but one is significantly worse than the other and in most races there isn't a viable 3rd option.

So if regardless of who wins we're going to have to coerce, argue, and fight them ... why the hell wouldn't we pick the one we have a better chance against?

If you vote Green, you’re a dupe for the Republicans. If you vote Libertarian, you’re a dupe for the Democrats. If you don’t vote at all, you’re the singular reason my 60/40 district didn’t break the correct way.

This is a childish interpretation of electoral politics. How would a vote for a third party help any mainstream candidate? If you’ve vote for libertarians you’re just a libertarian dumbass. Lmfao.

If you vote for the correct party, you need to just shut up and get in line. Quit criticizing the party after the election. There’s nothing else to be done.

If you have a little flag that says “End the Wars” while you’re in line to vote, GTFO we don’t want you here, I don’t care who you are voting for.

Is this really how you feel? or some joke I’m not picking up on? You don’t think politicians should be held to any leftist standard if they win? Why tf not? Why do we even bother electing them, you want all of them to go John Fetterman? That’s how you fucking lose elections dude.

I actually believe that people who are anti-war and anti fascists opinions do matter, and if you want those people to vote and “break your counties election the right way” you are going to actually have to start caring about black people, LGBT and other marginalized groups, working class, and anti War activists.

If you’re trying to get people to vote liberal telling them to “fuck off we don’t want you here” is incredibly stupid and short sighted.

… (how does it make them different?) …