Obama started from a position of weakness, used duplicity and deal making to get important progress done, and the young left threw it all away because then he had to fight to keep things stable and they weren't willing to keep having more imperfect, dishonorable, slow progress
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @BootlegGirl
They like progress but only if it’s fast and tenuous. Not slow but resolute
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @RealRyanWhorton
To be fair, Obama was slow and tenuous. The thing is, we will never have a shot to win at anything other than the lesser evil, because that's all politics can be. The core voters we needed sabotaged us in 2016 bc they weren't willing to support a lesser evil to keep slowly moving
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl
This is true. Only way that would change would have to involve a major reworking of our presidential electoral system as a start. And the dirt bag left you talk about. They seem to hate having real power.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @RealRyanWhorton
I'm skeptical of multi party/non FPTP systems and I think I have good reason - there's nowhere that doesn't have what amounts to a far right nationalist coalition and then a center left coalition, just because they're able to subdivide further doesn't change that
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @RealRyanWhorton
And multi party systems help extremists get a foothold. They're destabilizing.
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @RealRyanWhorton
I really don't see what you're basing this on. There's plenty of far right extremists in FPTP systems. FPTP rewards geographically concentrated fringes while punishing geographically diffuse ones.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @LibArtsNdCrafts @RealRyanWhorton
...no, that's the electoral college. which we should get rid of, but I have no hope that we will
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
FPTP for Congress has this effect, although more precisely what we're talking about is "single-member districts" where the single member is elected by plurality
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
But wouldn't a single member district elected by ranked choice probably come out the same? People would just feel more empowered to vote for extremes on either side, but usually it would still move to whatever the dominant candidate now would be
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like
Usually when people propose alternative voting for the legislature it's in the context of also getting rid of single member districts, instead letting everyone in the state vote for a slate of candidates (proportional representation)
-
-
Getting rid of single member districts, or adding some balancing mechanism, is basically required for real proportionality, it's just impossible to elect only based on district boundaries and not have distortion. At large elections are only one option though.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @LibArtsNdCrafts @arthur_affect and
Multi-member districts are an option. Dual Member Proportional is quite clever, and elects 2 from every district, with the "2nd" being used to balance out the overall representation. MMP is similar but with an "at large" balancing round, and then just straight open/closed list.
0 replies 1 retweet 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.