In the United Kingdom, there’s a tradition of letting the political party of any lawmaker assassinated in an act of political violence run unopposed in the by-election. : mildlyinteresting@lemmy.world

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

It lets people know violence cannot change the balance of power

No it doesn't.

Say you support party A, which politician B is a member of. Politician B doesn't agree exactly with you though. And you don't like that.

So if you merc the candidate you don't agree with for the party you support, their runner up (who you preferred anyways) runs unopposed and is guaranteed to win even if everyone hates them.

Even if it's not intentional, just handing the election off is incredibly fucked up.

Why the fuck would anyone support this after understanding what it means?

Quick edit:

In the last American election, two different Republicans tried to kill the Republican candidate.

And that wouldn't have even handed it to Vance they just wanted to do it.

This isn't a hypothetical, people kill politicians from their preferred party already, this would make political violence more common if there was any effect

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Deebster@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago

It's a by-election, i.e. voting in their replacement. The next election they'd have to fight for their seat as usual.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] savvywolf@pawb.social 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

... Isn't wanting to kill someone with vastly different views more common than wanting to kill someone with only slightly different views?

Like, sure someone could kill someone in the party they like for the chance to get someone they like better in power. But realistically it won't change much (they're still bound by the same whip) and it's not worth the risk of going to jail.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

… Isn’t wanting to kill someone with vastly different views more common than wanting to kill someone with only slightly different views?

Literally two Republicans tried to kill the Republican presidential candidate in the last year...

You really can't imagine a world where someone believes the candidate from their party is either too extreme or not extreme enough on a wedge issue that they'd try to kill them to guarantee someone else from the same party wins?

Like...

I overestimate people, I can admit that

But do you legitimately just not understand why this is bad?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Don’t forget the Republican mob that wanted to hang the VP on January 6.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Even just a primary...

Your pick comes in second place, if you get the one from your own party that made it to the general, your first pick is now guaranteed the office.

Like, great sentiment, but I think the reason it works in the UK, is 99.99% of the population can't get a high powered rifle in an afternoon.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] savvywolf@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago

Firstly, the Prime Minister and an MP are very different, so it's not really a fair comparison. Replacing an MP with one of the same party might result in what? Your bins being taken out on a different day?

Anyway, I think this is a "don't let perfect be the enemy of good situation". Without any safeguards, an assassination is most likely to come from someone across the political spectrum than someone next to them. So it makes sense to focus on preventing that even if it does open a potential (risky to execute) exploit.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent