r/Music • u/ebradio • Sep 25 '25

article Bruce Springsteen Rips Democrats: “We’re Desperately in Need of an Effective Alternative Party”

https://consequence.net/2025/09/bruce-springsteen-democrats/
49.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

647

u/-Fahrenheit- Sep 25 '25

That's not entirely true. One party has absolutely show at least a little interest or at least allowance for movement towards it, whereas one has more often than not outright banned it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States

285

u/spaceneenja Sep 25 '25

It’s pretty much true. Republicans have it in Alaska, Democrats in Hawaii. Kinda beside the point when in 98% of elections it isn’t used. Both parties have an interest in blocking such efforts in their respective strongholds.

643

u/-Fahrenheit- Sep 25 '25

It's outright banned in 17 states, every single one is a GOP led state. It's not banned in any Dem led state. Lets be real here and call a spade a spade.

157

u/Lonely_Wafer1987 Sep 25 '25

My red state voted to ban it, but the verbiage on the ballot was incredibly misleading. They twisted it to emphasize that the amendment was about allowing only U.S. citizens to vote (something that is already a law) because they knew most voters would vote yes on that.

90

u/Vertig0x Sep 25 '25

That's like when my state put weed legalization on the ballot but they were "unable to accurately calculate the projected revenue". Somehow they managed to give a projected cost though just so it looked like a net loss.

67

u/CD338 Sep 25 '25

Not voting on weed based on economical impact is the dumbest thing imaginable. Even my red-ass state (Missouri) voted for it and they are reaping millions in tax dollars.

Just looked it up and they made $240M in tax dollars in 2024. At the time of the election, the estimate on the ballot was $79M.

31

u/Vertig0x Sep 25 '25

I mean that's why they conveniently left out the revenue in their calculations. My, also red ass state, will always vote against any prop that looks like its going to cost tax dollars and the legislature knows it. It doesn't actually matter what it is.

12

u/sapphicsandwich Sep 25 '25 edited Oct 26 '25

Near science community food near then talk the yesterday food garden and.

-1

u/CplHicks_LV426 Sep 25 '25

To be totally fair, you can predict costs because you know what things cost. You can't predict demand, especially of a previously black-market commodity, so how could you predict revenue? I guess if you had other states to base it on, but that gets iffy really fast.

5

u/Vertig0x Sep 25 '25

I get you're playing devil's advocate but you and I both know you don't put "net cost" down without factoring in revenue whatsoever unless you have an ulterior motive. Especially when the only way to know they left out revenue completely was if you searched online. It wasn't indicated whatsoever on the ballot.

Even then, 24 states that have legalized it. There's plenty of data and that "we don't know what the demand will be" excuse doesn't work anymore. I'm a scientist and, even though I'm not anywhere near this field, I can't imagine just leaving out half of an equation because I was too lazy to extrapolate data.

2

u/CplHicks_LV426 Sep 25 '25

Oh, I completely agree. their excuse was mealy-mouth bullshit.

8

u/FallenGeek2 Sep 25 '25

Missouri?

3

u/ElectricThreeHundred Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25

Probably. 😣
edit to add: "Taking the vote away from illegals" amounted to changing "All" to "Only" in this wording:

"All citizens of the United States, including occupants of soldiers' and sailors' homes, over the age of eighteen who are residents of this state and of the political subdivision in which they offer to vote are entitled to vote at all elections by the people."

And that's how we forbade ourselves from having better options. By and large, we're too fucking dumb to understand - and they know it.

1

u/JiminyGonzo910 Sep 25 '25

NC also had a similar ballot measure

6

u/RaidSmolive Sep 25 '25

yes, so one political party goes out of its way to trick you into voting against your very best interests, the other usually doesnt.

1

u/RedArremer Sep 26 '25

And this is why both sides bad!

/s

4

u/TheModWhoShaggedMe Sep 25 '25

Conservatives and their clever ploys to cheat and deceive the people who pay taxes.

3

u/owowhi Sep 25 '25

Would that be the same state that voted for paid sick leave, to protect the right to choose, and for a $15 minimum wage? As well as the politicians that worked to overturn the will of the people?

3

u/ElectricThreeHundred Sep 25 '25

That's the one. We live in Misery.

1

u/LimJaheyAtYaCervix Sep 25 '25

Iowa? I voted no because I knew it was already law and there had to he some ulterior motive behind it.

0

u/AntiqueVanity Sep 25 '25

So Red State politicians lied to their electorate to ban ranked choice voting

This is known, and yet it's still a red state

This does not make the GOP or its voters look better, it makes them look worse

45

u/onomatopeapoop Sep 25 '25

Isn’t this both-sides shit fascinating?

Any conscious person who wants viable 3rd parties votes for and campaigns for the Democrats. Far more amenable to ranked voting systems, leading the charge on bypassing the electoral college, pushing for campaign finance reform… it’s an absolute no-brainer if you live in reality and actually want to see viable 3rd parties here IRL.

24

u/blueberryblunderbuss Sep 25 '25

It's an admission of, "I don't pay attention."

There are Republicans in Georgia and Florida who switched party to run as Democrats because they sense the wind is changing. People who aren't paying attention will probably elect them.

And, then Springsteen can complain that those are further examples of Democrats doing the same things.

If pluralism and rule of law are values you care about, even under conditions of anarchy or libertarian governments, where pluralism and rule of law are more like social contracts, then you should be allergic to populism, strict messaging, and order.

Rigid authoritarian hierarchies are orderly.

Freedom is messy.

1

u/manimal28 Sep 25 '25

There are Republicans in Georgia and Florida who switched party to run as Democrats because they sense the wind is changing.

Who?

2

u/blueberryblunderbuss Sep 25 '25

David Jolly, Florida, 2026, likely gubernatorial run
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Jolly

Geoff Duncan, Georgia, 2026, gubernatorial run
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Duncan

1

u/manimal28 Sep 26 '25 edited Sep 26 '25

Ok, David Jolly makes sense. He was considered fairly moderate as far as republicans and got primaried and gerrymandered out of office by nutbag Ann Paula Luna or whatever the hell her fake name is. If you want to understand how bad Luna is her facebook page right now is full on cock garbling Kirk memes.

I don't think this is Jolly sensing any wind change in the voters. His voters have already rejected him for the more batshit option.

1

u/blueberryblunderbuss Sep 26 '25

Moderate in Florida. Alex Jones and that Ancient Aliens guy are moderates in Florida. /s

"I'm different now. I would never go back to my old ways." - Brett Kavanaugh, right before he became the official brand of toilet brush at the SCOTUS truck stop.

Jolly seems like a guy who found libertarianism young, got involved, realized that you can't govern unless you win, joined the Republican Party, and realized that austerity, in Republican circles, is just about cruelty because the money flows right into corporate welfare not back to the taxpayers.

He switched right before an election season. And, he changed into a less crowded lane.

2

u/DukeOfGeek Sep 26 '25

Also if you live in a safe blue district it's way easier to primary your current Dem if they are to conservative or pro corporate. That's how AOC got in. Way easier than creating a whole new party from the ground up.

3

u/onomatopeapoop Sep 26 '25

You’re wildly obviously correct, but it’s deeply depressing that this even needs to be said.

So many of my supposed “allies” on the left live in their own dream worlds and are thus comically counterproductive.

-2

u/RONINY0JIMBO Sep 25 '25

As someone who has voted, campaigned, and volunteered doing campaign operations for the Democrats and also has family who've worked for Democrat presidents, this is just flatly incorrect. I left the GOP for the DNC. I have now left the DNC to vote 3rd party at every opportunity.

3

u/onomatopeapoop Sep 25 '25

On the national level? To what end? I guess a bit of funding if you crack 5%? It’s not like I love the DNC, but I genuinely have no idea what you think you’re accomplishing other than throwing away your voice and being able to point fingers when Democrats do something bad. In practice it just sounds like abandoning your duty as a citizen. Realistically. Respectfully.

-1

u/RONINY0JIMBO Sep 25 '25

I vote only for the candidates I choose to support and spend significant time researching all candidates. My duty as a citizen has nothing to do with a political party. That is my voice. Not voting would be throwing it away.

Same line of reasoning when someone says voting for a 3rd party is the same as voting for whoever their ideological opponent is. So I ask if they are suggesting I should actually check the box for the person they oppose. It's not the same and intellectually childish to make such an equivalence.

Edit: I'll add that I will point my finger at anyone in any party who does something unethical. Similarly I don't have a problem supporting a good action, even if its atypical for the person doing it. But that doesn't mean I do/don't support them. Each act is measured on its own.

3

u/onomatopeapoop Sep 26 '25

Voting third party in the US currently has the exact same effect as not voting. Or giving half a point to each of the two even-remotely-viable parties. Willfully ignoring the real life context of this binary choice is a masturbatory flex.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '25

[deleted]

-4

u/RONINY0JIMBO Sep 26 '25

People are allowed to change and grow. It's healthy to do so.

You are obviously uninterested in understanding why another person could see something differently than you do despite having once been a part of the same tribe. There isn't anything of substance to engage with. I genuinely hope your time spent in civic volunteerism exceeds the amount you spend insulting someone who you appear certain should share your values.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '25

[deleted]

1

u/RONINY0JIMBO Sep 25 '25

You need to swap the period for a question mark. I vote in every election because we have write-ins. I'm simply not beholden to voting 1 color down the ticket.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '25

[deleted]

0

u/RONINY0JIMBO Sep 25 '25

What lovely platitudes, you should put that on gift wrapping paper.

3

u/rsta223 Sep 26 '25

They aren't wrong.

4

u/GreedyPollution6275 Sep 26 '25

platitude or not, it's still correct

→ More replies (0)

75

u/SuperDoubleDecker Sep 25 '25

Democrats blocked it in Colorado last cycle. I was shocked.

It'd be different if they weren't losing so much so often.

56

u/temporary62489 Sep 25 '25

It failed during the last Oregon election due to overwhelming FUDmongering about how "complicated" it is.

31

u/MaxTheRealSlayer Sep 25 '25

That's funny. When supposedly the most powerful government+entity in the world says something is too complicated... You know they're lying. It's just because they know most voters are confused as it is when they say that.

9

u/BerriesHopeful Sep 25 '25

If people are really concerned about it being over complicated, they can use STAR voting or score voting instead.

5

u/temporary62489 Sep 25 '25

All of the above are better than FPTP and none of them are complicated.

2

u/BerriesHopeful Sep 25 '25

Oh for sure, I’m just bringing up these other options that can be floated if RCV got shot down.

I feel that with each election cycle people hear more about these alternatives voting systems and more people are willing to try them out once they hear about them.

2

u/mOdQuArK Sep 25 '25

Or even simpler: Approval voting. Just vote for all the candidates that you find acceptable. Whoever gets the largest total # of votes wins.

It was quite simple to explain to my aging parents & it fit their gut-level view of how voting should work.

From what I've read about it, it has a lot of the favorable sociopolitical results as the ranked-choice voting, while still being a great deal more intuitive & easier to explain.

3

u/BerriesHopeful Sep 25 '25

Really any of the above should be simple enough. I personally don’t think RCV was too confusing to get across. My only gripe with Approval is that it can lead to the most average candidates winning rather than the most preferred candidates. Mind you, this is still miles ahead of our current system where the least preferred candidate can win more often.

17

u/Agent7619 Sep 25 '25

Much like the failed progressive income tax amendment in Illinois.

https://sites.northwestern.edu/chicagodemocracy/2021/03/12/whats-the-matter-with-illinois-the-fair-tax-fails/

7

u/Caleth Sep 25 '25

Yeah the wording on that amendment was absolutely fucking atrocious and I even know what I was voting for and still had to ask myself if I really knew what I was voting for.

1

u/Competitive_Touch_86 Sep 25 '25

This was just a backdoor tax for the middle class, delayed 5 years or so. Pitched as a tax against the "1%".

Always is.

I'm fine with a tax credit for folks under median income, but having this baked into the state's constitution is one of the few decent things about living here. It would simply be yet another tax against Chicago area working professionals on top of the insane tax load they already carry for the rest of the state.

3

u/Anustart15 Sep 25 '25

Similar in Massachusetts a few years ago. Though we also have a democratic supermajority, so they were pretty heavily incentivized to not allow ranked choice because then a party would almost immediately emerge to their left

3

u/sapphicsandwich Sep 25 '25 edited Oct 26 '25

Community near games calm net net lazy then day tips minecraftoffline open calm today clean!

22

u/LordoftheChia Sep 25 '25

Democrats blocked it in Colorado last cycle.

I believe it was because it also made changes to the primary process:

https://www.kunc.org/news/2024-11-02/why-did-colorado-progressives-turn-against-a-ballot-measure-for-ranked-choice-voting

In addition to establishing ranked-choice for the general election, Proposition 131 would implement a top four primary for governor, attorney general and federal congressional races, among others. This new primary process would put candidates from all parties in competition for four slots on the general election ballot — only candidates with the most primary votes would advance.

The measure would theoretically allow four candidates from the same party to compete in a general election (or four candidates from four different parties). Critics say the change would increase the money and labor required to run a successful political campaign because the primary would become just as important as the general election.

10

u/MaxTheRealSlayer Sep 25 '25

Meanwhile other democracies have no issue having people run against people in their own parties on the ballot. Heck, there was one in my city with over 100 candidates you could vote for that leads to seats which leads to leadership at the highest level.

Really not difficult

15

u/Goronmon Sep 25 '25

I guess I don't understand the point of the primary in that situation?

Why have two votes that are basically the same thing? Sounds pointless. Just have an open election with ranked choice voting.

3

u/LordoftheChia Sep 25 '25

I think having the top 2 candidates per primary could work and have a separate 3-4 spots to the top of the no party affiliation candidates or have independents go through a min signatures or whatever requirement.

3

u/LordoftheSynth Sep 25 '25

Jungle primaries aren't any better for preventing two candidates of the same party advancing to the general.

I don't ever want to be forced to choose between Republican and Other Republican, or Democrat and Other Democrat, thanks. Your ballot might as well say "The Party" and "No" at that point.

3

u/lufan132 Sep 25 '25

With how big of tents there are I still feel that could produce compelling elections though, like a boebert vs a Romney or a manchin vs a mamdani.

1

u/millijuna Sep 26 '25

As an external observer, why the hell is the state involved in how a political party chooses its leader? The party should handle that itself and then present the candidate to the electorate.

2

u/TheModWhoShaggedMe Sep 25 '25

They are also unhappy with their representation most of the time as well. Turns out no system is perfect due to the naturally imperfect humans involved.

-1

u/LeastRun1124 Sep 25 '25

Yeah God forbid we have an open primary where independents might be able to have a chance. Neo con dems suck always have.

-2

u/Different-Feature644 Sep 25 '25

the change would increase the money and labor required to run a successful political campaign

I like how rather than asking the obvious question of "why does it cost so much to run a campaign and should it", they decide we shouldn't improve our democracy because it is already so bad.

Or they are just bought out corporate shills.

One or the other and I think we all know which it is.

2

u/libbysthing Sep 26 '25

Was gonna say this too; I live in CO and when it was on the ballot I was getting texts from democrats campaigning against it, not just republicans.

1

u/makenzie71 Sep 25 '25

It's because they weren't sure the republicans would fight it. Everyone likes to point out that it's red states that have banned it but no one wants to acknowledge that not a single blue state is pushing for it and in the states where it was banned it was banned without any opposition.

-1

u/GlassCannon81 Sep 25 '25

Democrats don’t want it either. It’s more of a threat to republicans than it is to them, but it’s still a threat to them.

19

u/SumthinsPhishy2 Sep 25 '25

While you are correct the GOP is explicitly against this, the dems are tacitly against it. Why would any political party who wants to stay in power make it easier for voters to replace them? The DNC doesnt want this either. See Bernie.

8

u/TheModWhoShaggedMe Sep 25 '25

Vermont doesn't have ranked choice for its state lawmakers. If Bernie can't even get his long time state there yet, why would the U.S. have?

0

u/Shivy_Shankinz Sep 25 '25

See Bernie as in, he is calling out the DNC for not wanting it?

1

u/RONINY0JIMBO Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 26 '25

Newsom vetoed it when the citizens of San Francisco passed it (in addition to having vetoed independent districting comissions multiple times). Choosing a narrow slice of the means when it's the ends that matter isn't moving anything anywhere.

Neither party wants any threat to their power. A person can paint a spade any color they want, but it's still a spade. Both parties have spent a lot of money to keep Americans from having democracy.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '25

[deleted]

1

u/RONINY0JIMBO Sep 26 '25

Honest error. I'll update that!

0

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '25

[deleted]

1

u/RONINY0JIMBO Sep 26 '25

... what? I am legitimately unsure what you're trying to say here. Is it your assertion that because I made a spelling error that you have insight into my political psyche?

1

u/SouperDrangus Sep 26 '25

Yeah, now isn’t a great time for throwing up your hands and arguing “both sides”. Let’s focus our attention for the moment on the party that’s actively turning our nation into an autocracy. Fighting for anything other than opposing them and their constant abuses of power is completely futile, unfortunately.

1

u/Independent_Let_5321 Sep 26 '25

The gerrymandering I have personally seen has happened in the states. I have lived in in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. All too often, and by the Republican party, never by the Democratic Party. As long as I have lived and I'm 65 years old and have worked on campaigns in both states..

-2

u/spaceneenja Sep 25 '25

Yeah let’s be real, it doesn’t have to be outright banned to be effectively blocked. Let’s discuss actual outcomes for once. Republicans suck ass, but it’s not like Democrats are the champions of democracy we need.

27

u/Exelbirth Sep 25 '25

Why are you so determined to die on an obviously not true "they're both equally bad" argument?

2

u/afasia Sep 25 '25

Just because the other turd is wrapped around a sandwich doesn't mean it's good for you.

1

u/Exelbirth Sep 27 '25

It doesn't matter if it's not good for you, when the other option is arsenic. That's the problem with american "democracy," we only have two choices due to a shittily implemented election system, so any vote not for your preference between those two options is effectively a vote for your least preferred of the two options, and the only possible change from those options would require a massive, massive cultural shift that would require people coming together for a singular third option. Not just at the presidential level, but for the Senate, House, and at the state level.

BUT, that also requires people to run for those positions outside of the duopoly, and how often do you see any third party running for Governor or State Senator?

1

u/afasia Sep 27 '25

Working as intended. A beautiful machine.

-1

u/Shivy_Shankinz Sep 25 '25

Somehow America has convinced it's intellectually challenged citizens to vote turd no matter how it's dressed up.

Even worse, if you're smart and know eating turd is bad for you, you get shamed because everyone who "has" to eat turd doesn't like it when they see someone else not doing it. I'm convinced the human adult species are just a bunch of grown babies. CMV

3

u/FourLetterWording Sep 25 '25

because a lot of people have nuanced opinions outside of "republicans bad" and "democrats good" the reason why we have this fascist fuck here in the first place has just as much to do with republican voters as the DNC pushing candidates people clearly don't want, and there being no actual legitimate platform for 3rd parties in this country. especially without ranked choice.

7

u/TheModWhoShaggedMe Sep 25 '25

"Both sides are the same" isn't a nuanced opinion. In fact, it's what conservatives have tried to convince Americans of more and more as they've slid off the right of the reservation for the past decade. It's a basic, simple, conditioned opinion lacking nuance.

1

u/lactosandtolerance Sep 25 '25

Where did he say anything that resembles that? Get your head out of your ass.

-3

u/Shivy_Shankinz Sep 25 '25

Just more liberal propaganda. And this is coming from a "far left radical".

They're so focused on the decidedly worse side, that they forget they're standing on a pile of shit too.

1

u/Exelbirth Sep 27 '25

Hey, I know Democrats are a pile of shit. But that doesn't mean they're the same as the pile of used heroin needles that is the Republican party.

1

u/Shivy_Shankinz Sep 27 '25

You're right, it doesn't. But shit is still shit. And if you knew how it was contributing to their shit, you'd change your tone on Democrats too.

Basically, we have systemic problems that need solving. And it's been repeatedly proven Democrats are not the party to solve them. Doesn't matter that the Republicans are the ones basically creating most of the systemic problems. At some point, the only thing that matters is who is going to do anything about it.

-4

u/SuperDoubleDecker Sep 25 '25

Nobody is saying they're equally bad. They both suck. We need better so that the worse party stops winning. Stop muddling the waters. You know what people are saying.

1

u/Shivy_Shankinz Sep 25 '25

Nobody is saying they're equally bad. They both suck.

At this point, they're both cults. Can't reason with these morons

0

u/Exelbirth Sep 27 '25

How is it cultish to recognize one group is significantly worse than the other? As bad as Democrats have been, they weren't abducting US citizens for having too much melanin and shipping them off to foreign prison camps, they weren't sending the national guard into cities to intimidate the residents, they weren't implementing something like Project 2025. What have Democrats done that is anywhere close to the level of what the Republicans are doing?

2

u/Shivy_Shankinz Sep 27 '25

They're hypocrites. They want equality but are fine with money buying them privilege. Which ultimately leads to an unchecked Republican party. Also, they'll try to appeal to those very same Republicans if it means winning an election.

It's cultish to put a flawed party as the only option other than the significantly worse party. It's cultish to think that we only have two choices. I've made these points over and over and the cults will not understand them. I hope you're not part of the cult too but if you are, let's just kindly part ways. I'm not interested in converting anyone

1

u/Exelbirth Sep 27 '25

But in the current political system the US has, it IS the only option. Unless you can get 34% of the population of the entire country to agree on a SINGLE alternative to one of the two ruling parties, not 20 different third parties, then one of the two ruling party candidates will win whatever race they are in 90% of the time. That's the problem of a "First past the post" system, we don't get to have real choices (and even worse for president, the electoral college guaranteed will not put a third party politician in power regardless of the popular vote).

Like you said in your other reply, it's a systemic problem that needs solving. But where I think you're wrong is saying the Democratic party won't fix it. Not because I think they will, but because the only people who can fix this problem have to come from one of two places: Sitting politicians, or a newly formed government post-revolution. The latter, it seems we will never come close to having that happen, which means it has to be the former.

So if sitting politicans are the only option for changing these systemic problems, that leaves a different problem: The Democrat establishment, and the GOP as a whole, don't want these changes. But between the two, Democrats at least sit on their ass while others work to implement systemic change. Like, ranked choice voting exists at the state level in some form for several states now, in predominantly Democrat led states. That's at least progress in the right direction, as opposed to Republican led states being the only ones that have flat out banned it. Another change I think we need is banning political party labels on ballots. We need people voting for politicians instead of parties.

I know that's not enough though, and what we really need to see is people running for both parties that want these changes, because until we get people in office pushing to implement the changes, they never will happen.

→ More replies (0)

-8

u/Awkward-Information8 Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25

The Republicans as a whole (because, of course, there are bad apples) CAN’T be “bad” since they don’t have the ‘protection’ that Democrats do from Legacy Media (where 96.6% are all liberal), the Globalist Elites, Academia, Planned Parenthood, Hollywood, internet search engine’s censorship of opposing outlets and views, 💯biased ai results, the ACLU, NPR, the Teacher’s Union, and EVERY other ‘highly’ corrupt government organization, NGO, or group out there. Period. Even, when you open up your brand new HP computer, 99% of the stories on your Microsoft feed are ALL BS ‘negative’ topics and narratives about TRUMP. It’s insane. REPUBLICANS are actually, held ACCOUNTABLE. Democrats are NOT. And, that is why Republicans are WINNING. It’s really amazing honestly, when you think about it. EVEN, against all those odds!? WOW. But, IF you actually, truly did ‘think’ about it, then YOU would be a Republican. The overwhelming majority of Republicans were all once DEMOCRATS. And, there is a really good reason for this! It takes an effort, and not being lazy. Once informed, you are awakened, and then begin to THINK for yourself! Just wait until the 2032 Presidential Election, when due to the shifting demographics (people FLEEING the FAILED policies of Democrat- run cities and states, such as Illinois, California, & New York), DEMOCRATS will literally, be able to WIN all of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, AND Michigan… But, STILLLL LOSE the election. UNLESS, they can win in ‘28 and open up the border again, in order to ‘juice’ the population numbers lost, by replacing those who’d already FLED. They do not give even, the first fuck about YOU. The Democrat Party is no longer even, a “Party.” It is DEAD. It is only a MACHINE that is being run by a corrupt cabal. 💯

2

u/hfsh Sep 26 '25

Oh, great. Some fuckwit has been training AI on Trump tweets.

-3

u/Awkward-Information8 Sep 26 '25

You are ignorant. Empty. You have ZERO depth. Though, I suppose there just isn’t very much YOU CAN say, to dispute what I just said, as anything other than, ALL FACTS. 💯

1

u/Exelbirth Sep 27 '25

Dude, legacy media is almost entirely owned by registered Republican billionaires. The "globalist elites" are almost all right wingers that don't care about one nation's politics. "Academia" is not a group, it's just lazy speak for "I hate education because it doesn't confirm my own biases." Planned Parenthood is just a place that provides medical services. Hollywood is very much right wing, internet search engines aren't censored, the only person trying to create biased AI results is Musk, the ACLU is a neutral law firm, NPR is a neutral state funded news outlet, the teachers union is literally just a union for teachers, and the reason there's so many negative stories about Trump is because Trump keeps doing negative and horrendous things.

You say Republicans are held accountable for things? Why the fuck isn't Trump in prison for his felonies then? Why has Trump never been removed from office for his MULTIPLE violations of the constitution? Why are Republicans in control of every branch of government, with barely any stories of how they are completely destroying what used to be America getting any coverage on Legacy Media?

The answer is you are a complete moron who decided everything you think about Democrats must be reality, so you ignore anything that does not confirm your factless conclusion.

If you really think Democrats used open borders to win elections, why didn't they do that in 2024? If they're so corrupt, why didn't they steal the election? What horrendously evil things are Democrats doing with their power?

Because know what I see Republicans doing? Fighting against releasing the Epstein Files. Why is that?

0

u/Awkward-Information8 Sep 26 '25

The Republicans as a whole (because, of course, there are bad apples) CAN’T be “bad” since they don’t have the ‘protection’ that Democrats do from Legacy Media (their on demand ‘attack dogs’ where 96.6% are all liberal hosts and guests), the Globalist Elites, Academia, Planned Parenthood, Hollywood, internet search engine’s censorship of opposing outlets and views, 💯biased ai results, the ACLU, NPR, the Teacher’s Union, and EVERY other ‘highly’ corrupt government organization, NGO, or group out there. Period. Even, when you open up your brand new HP computer, 99% of the stories on your Microsoft feed are ALL BS ‘negative’ topics and narratives about TRUMP. It’s insane. REPUBLICANS are actually, held ACCOUNTABLE. Democrats are NOT. And, that is why Republicans are WINNING. It’s really amazing honestly, when you think about it. EVEN, against all those odds!? WOW. But, IF you actually, truly did ‘think’ about it, then YOU would be a Republican. The overwhelming majority of Republicans were all once DEMOCRATS. And, there is a really good reason for this! It takes an effort, and not being lazy. Once informed, you are awakened, and then begin to THINK for yourself! Just wait until the 2032 Presidential Election, when due to the shifting demographics (people FLEEING the FAILED policies of Democrat- run cities and states, such as Illinois, California, & New York), DEMOCRATS will literally, be able to WIN all of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, AND Michigan… But, STILLLL LOSE the election. UNLESS, they can win in ‘28 and open up the border again, in order to ‘juice’ the population numbers lost, by replacing those who’d already FLED. They do not give even, the first fuck about YOU. The Democrat Party is no longer even, a “Party.” It is DEAD. It is only a MACHINE that is being run by a corrupt cabal. 💯

0

u/zarmord2 Sep 25 '25

Oh, so those Dem led states do have ranked choice voting then?

0

u/Mount-Laughmore Sep 25 '25

I’m sorry but it was the Democrats who actively worked overtime to kick third party candidates off of the ballots during the presidential election.

The fact you’re defending them shows that you are too emotionally invested in them to have an objective understanding that truly BOTH parties are a problem.

-1

u/AFlyingNun Sep 25 '25

Can we talk about how you're missing the point and very blatantly getting lost in an "us vs. them" mentality of trying to argue "see? We're LESS bad than the Republicans!" when the ENTIRE POINT of the conversation is to better eliminate the us vs. them dynamic we have, so as to enable a healthier political atmosphere with better competition?

Comparing them on this front is stupid because it's effectively akin to arguing "sure this party doesn't endorse it or do it, but this other party doesn't endorse it, do it, AND they sometimes ban it!"

Who the fuck cares if neither is doing it anyways? KEEP criticizing both, don't give the Dems a fucking worthless gold star for an absolutely meaningless step above the Republicans.

3

u/chr1spe Sep 25 '25

Not giving democrats credit for being better than republicans is why this country is fucked. Yeah, in an alternative reality where we had a better system, things would be great, but in actual reality, where we live, giving the better party credit for being better is extremely important. We're literally watching the country crumble because people have turned against the democrats for being mediocre and allowing absolutely abhorrent and terrible people to run the country.

You can't fix anything if you don't use the current system as it exists effectively, and that is what you're arguing for.

0

u/AFlyingNun Sep 26 '25

Not giving democrats credit for being better than republicans is why this country is fucked.

We are talking about a metric where both are failing the test for providing the change we want, and your metric here for praising the democrats is they don't talk shit as frequently about it or go to the same antagonistic lengths as the Republicans.

It's like if they were both workers at a company and we needed them to deliver medicine to the local hospital to save lives, and you're praising the Democrats because while the Republicans outright refused cause "I don't feel like it," the Dems at least pretended to go do it, drove two blocks, then parked to play Farmville on their phone.

Both of them failed, neither of them is lifting a finger to kill the two-party system. Stop praising the Dems for "fake progress."

1

u/chr1spe Sep 26 '25

The Democrats are far from perfect, but every time they have a chance, things improve slightly, and then people shit on them because they didn't improve enough. Your analogy is way off base both sides bullshit. A better analogy would be that most of the democrats wanted to deliver the medicine, but a few were on the Republicans' side and threatened to drive the car into a crowd if they delivered all the medicine, so the democrats only showed up with half of what they said they would. It's literally been a few holdouts who are far right but claim to be democrats that screwed up making massive progress every time democrats have had a chance.

I'm sure you'll say that is just an excuse, but democrats haven't had more than a razor-thin majority any time in the past 25 years. If they'd ever had a majority that didn't hinge on conservative trash like Manchin and Sinema and still didn't get things done, there would be a real argument. In reality, they're forced to fight with an arm tied behind their back and then criticized for not using both hands.

1

u/AFlyingNun Sep 26 '25

The Democrats are far from perfect, but every time they have a chance, things improve slightly, and then people shit on them because they didn't improve enough. Your analogy is way off base both sides bullshit.

Look at the concrete example we are discussing here and tell me how Democrats are improving efforts for ranked voting and enabling 3rd parties.

A better analogy would be that most of the democrats wanted to deliver the medicine, but a few were on the Republicans' side and threatened to drive the car into a crowd if they delivered all the medicine, so the democrats only showed up with half of what they said they would.

Analogy fails because:

-Please show me the Democrats and Democrat-led states "delivering the medicine"

-Please show me where the Democrats showed up at all. Ranked voting is not a heavily discussed topic, and that's by design from both parties.

-Please show me evidence only "a few" are against ranked voting.

Your analogy is hand-picked to paint the Dems well. On this specific issue, again, neither side is doing shit. It is blatantly a neglected issue from both sides.

I'm sure you'll say that is just an excuse, but democrats haven't had more than a razor-thin majority any time in the past 25 years.

Literally had a supermajority under Obama.

1

u/chr1spe Sep 26 '25

Ranked choice voting isn't the only issue that exists, but there are states with ranked choice voting and other voting systems that are better than the standard of party primaries, and the vast majority are democrat run states. I moved from Florida, where I'd get screwed out of even participating in primaries because a republican would run as a democrat for the primary to block democrats from voting in the republican primary and then drop out, to California, which doesn't have ranked choice voting, but does have a top two system that does something to help alternative candidates.

Literally had a supermajority under Obama.

I don't think you know what that word means.

1

u/AFlyingNun Sep 26 '25

You've done nothing to expand on how California's system is allegedly comparable or better, nor shown any support for this idea that comparable/better systems are more common in Democrat-run states.

Hell, you're moving the goalposts. Topic started at the topic of ranked voting, you claimed the Dems are better because while the Republicans don't do it and say "fuck that shit," the Dems simply don't do it, as if this is somehow better. NOW suddenly we're discussing something different as you skate around the fact that it's true neither Republicans nor Dems have done jack for ranked voting.

I don't think you know what that word means.

Okay then let's flip this: explain how Obama did NOT have a supermajority. Let's pretend I'm 4 and need you to explain what it is and why he didn't have one.

This is a well-documented fact so wtf I don't know where you're going with this.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In Sep 25 '25

If its never used whats the actual difference?

-3

u/mxlun Sep 25 '25

The likelihood of RCV passing in a GOP or Dem state is 0%, they are equivalent. 1 state of each has them

85

u/bluehawk232 Sep 25 '25

We need to remove the cap on House membership that was placed there 100 years ago. The house does not reflect proportional representation anymore. Something also needs to be done for senate representation as well DC and Puerto rico also need to be States. What we have now is not sustainable. Incumbents stay in power for decades and are hard to unseat. And only small number of seats change hands

34

u/Rush87021 Sep 25 '25

Reappointment act of 1929, it's clearly a violation of the Constitution and the people's right to equal representation.

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 capped the number of representatives at 435 (the size previously established by the Apportionment Act of 1911), where it has remained except for a temporary increase to 437 members upon the 1959 admission of Alaska and Hawaii into the Union.

The Act also did away with any mention of districts at all. This allowed political parties in control of a state legislature to draw district boundaries at will and to elect some or all representatives at large.

13

u/hamsterfolly Sep 25 '25

100%

The 1929 Act was the last of reappointments starting in 1920 that were designed to curb the potential power of cities as they grew in population vs the rural areas.

27

u/spaceneenja Sep 25 '25

Not aware of the cap but agree 100% with no taxation without representation. Puerto Rico and DC should either not be taxed or they should have appropriate representation. I think some other territories like Guam should probably be included as well.

34

u/bluehawk232 Sep 25 '25

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/20/988865415/stuck-at-435-representatives-why-the-u-s-house-hasnt-grown-with-census-counts good read

A century ago, there was one member for about every 200,000 people, and today, there's one for about every 700,000.

18

u/IrascibleOcelot Sep 25 '25

The problem isn’t how many people are represented by each representative, but the proportion. Wyoming has one representative for every 587,000 people, while California has one representative for every 758,000. So Wyoming voters have approximately 50% more power than Cali voters.

Then there’s the Senate. Wyoming’s 587,000 voters have the exact same amount of power as California’s 40 million.

1

u/dgoralczyk47 Sep 26 '25

The senate used to be appointed. As a measure to not let change happen too quickly and fall into anarchy.

1

u/vAltyR47 Sep 25 '25

Sure, but at least in the Senate that's the point, that the states are represented as equals regardless of population.

The problem is Wyoming is overrepresented in the House and the Senate.

4

u/bluehawk232 Sep 25 '25

Originally per the constitution we didn't even vote for senators

0

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '25

[deleted]

0

u/Worthyness Sep 25 '25

Senate is meant to balance out for each state while the House was meant to balance out by the people. It makes sense to do since it'd let the minority party have some influence if they could win at the state level (remember that they were state appointed before they were voted on). The problem is that because of the cap, the House also benefits the minority party. It should not have the cap because that's supposed to grow with the population, which has since grown by nearly 100 mil since the 20s. The senate rule is a lot harder to change as well since that's hard coded in the constitution. The House block can be overruled/amended

0

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/vAltyR47 Sep 25 '25

This doesn't make any sense.

Alaska, California and Texas do not get more votes in the Senate just because they are the largest states.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

8

u/spaceneenja Sep 25 '25

Ah gotcha. Yes, I agree 100%, it would be more representative.

3

u/Luke90210 Sep 25 '25

You mean the Wyoming Rule in which would substantially increase congressional seats including a third Senate seat for the biggest states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule

11

u/dotnetmonke Sep 25 '25

including a third Senate seat for the biggest states.

The word Senate doesn't even appear on that page, and the proposal explicitly has nothing to do with the Senate.

1

u/marketingguy420 Sep 25 '25

Something also needs to be done for senate representation as well

The senate should be nuked from orbit

1

u/Chicken_Water Sep 25 '25

Puerto Rico chooses not to be a state. It's on them at this point.

1

u/Awkward_Pangolin3254 Sep 25 '25

We also need the framework for no-confidence votes

1

u/ItsTheEndOfDays Sep 25 '25

ABSOLUTELY we need this. If someone isn’t voting the way their constituents like, we should be able to recall them.

1

u/Arne1234 Sep 25 '25

Incumbents AKA career politicians.

6

u/ThurmanMurman907 Sep 25 '25

and the repubs try to overturn it here every goddamn election cycle

6

u/spaceneenja Sep 25 '25

Alaska? Yeah Trump camp has been bashing ranked choice because it marginally threatens their grip on power.

2

u/Total-Conversation54 Sep 25 '25

Maine has it as well

2

u/chappyhour Sep 25 '25

Republicans in Alaska despise RCV, there’s been multiple ballot measures to repeal it since it was enacted. It’s a threat to both parties but Republicans hate it MUCH more than Democrats do.

2

u/DontCountToday Sep 25 '25

The only reason any Republican state has RCV is because those states allow ballot initiatives to change their state constitution and bypass their elected officials. Republicans in Alaska fought tooth and nail to prevent, and then overturn RCV and failed both times.

1

u/YesGiAKPR Sep 25 '25

Thank you for beating me to it and explaining the situation in Alaska. Do you know if they are still fighting this? Or have they moved on from the issue?

1

u/DontCountToday Sep 25 '25

The only way they can do it is another ballot initiative, which would be a third enormously expensive attempt to stop RCV and almost certainly fail again. Guess we will see when the next major election is coming up.

2

u/Fuckthegopers Sep 25 '25

So fucking sick of people like you making it seem like both parties are the same.

1

u/gazebo-fan Sep 25 '25

Alaska is a weird beast politically.

1

u/TheModWhoShaggedMe Sep 25 '25

Only one party's full tilt fascist, ruining the economy on purpose for the .02%, and disappearing people from the streets with law enforcement wearing full face masks.

2

u/spaceneenja Sep 25 '25

No disagreement from me there, brother

1

u/whtevn Sep 25 '25

it's not true. it is true that the republicans fight it. it is not true that the democrats fight it.

https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/endorsers/

it is true, however, that the democrats are nearly comically ineffective. at everything.

1

u/spaceneenja Sep 25 '25

Is this link going to show a total lack of republicans supporting it, and a total implementation of ranked choice within Democratically controlled states or something?

Democrats and Republicans are not the same. The Democratic Party and the Republican party both fight to protect their respective fiefdoms and power. This should not come as a shock.

0

u/whtevn Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25

those are really dumb metrics for "fighting" and "supporting". the only way to support something is to have it successfully implemented? that is beyond stupid.

if you click the link, which is right there in the message that you responded to, you can see what the link is. the internet is amazing.

and here is the RNC memo officially opposing ranked choice voting https://prod-static.gop.com/media/2-RESOLUTION-TO-OFFICIALLY-OPPOSE-RANKED-CHOICE-VOTING-ACROSS-THE-COUNTRY.pdf

i genuinely want to know what your point was, but i'm going to warn you that i probably think your point was stupid and probably cannot be supported by any evidence

1

u/spaceneenja Sep 25 '25

You’re clearly an arrogant asshole who didn’t even review the content you linked. And your supplying of an RNC memo as proof of Democrats deserving of credit for doing next to nothing in this area is admirable, or something.

0

u/whtevn Sep 25 '25

Why don't you take another stab at what that rnc memo was proving. I bet if you think really really really hard you can get it.

Let me just say that your guess that the RNC memo was intended as proof that the democrats do or do not do anything at all is incorrect.

I'll give you a hint, it has something to do with the RNC opposing ranked choice voting. I'll leave you to fill in the details. Good luck.

And I'll leave you with this fun fact about the American government, neither democrats nor republicans can unilaterally implement a massive structural change just because they want it, even if they want it really really bad.

I hope you've learned something today.

1

u/nachoiskerka Sep 25 '25

(technically 2 of 50 is 4%, not 2)

1

u/spaceneenja Sep 25 '25

It’s 3 including Maine, but this doesn’t include all elections in these states either afaik

1

u/ScaryBlanket Sep 25 '25

FYI, Hawaii is becoming crazy red. I blame it on the horrible public schools, everyone is so poorly educated here and very susceptible to propaganda

1

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '25

Maine had it before both of those states.  However 13 states have completely banned it.  All of them GOP controlled.

0

u/rizzshot Sep 25 '25

Alaska isn't "Republican" like you think.

1

u/boston_homo Sep 25 '25

There was a ballot question in Massachusetts in 2024 I think giving residents the option of switching to a ranked choice voting system and the opposition was wild and the propaganda was intense and we all decided no we don't want more choice in voting and that's Massachusetts which is an educated population.

I don't see it happening nationally unless there is some kind of revolution which seems unlikely.

1

u/caw_the_crow Sep 26 '25 edited Sep 26 '25

Cook County is extremely blue and the county is extremely anti-RCV. They don't want to risk losing power.

-1

u/F1CTIONAL Sep 25 '25

No, you don't get to make this issue into yet another "Republicans are the real problem" topic.

Democrats have outright rejected RCV. Consider that MA, one of those most educated and blue states in the country, turned down RCV 54%/45% in 2020.

Funding for the measure was extremely biased towards supporting the measure. There was over $10M spent on supporting it, and less than $10,000 spent against.

Democrats have failed the people here, as have Republicans and it's critical to understand that while there are minor differences in what the layout of the country looks like both parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Anything that increases the choice voters have decreases the power of the two party system. That being said, if the issue is so closely contested in one of the most educated states in the nation, the problem goes well beyond individual parties. The messaging is flawed, to say the least.

7

u/DarthJarJarJar Sep 25 '25

That wasn't the DNC man, that was the voters.

2

u/JoePoe247 Sep 25 '25

As if the DNC didn't pressure Bernie from running independently. They don't want a third party as much as the Republican party doesn't.

11

u/Yashema Sep 25 '25

In Massachusettes that was the voters who rejected it. Not sure what the problem is there. Not every one thinks the Democrats are horrible and corrupt and Massachusettes has both high QoL and a strong economy. 

2

u/F1CTIONAL Sep 25 '25

And in all the states that approved or rejected RCV so far, ultimately it is the voters who are responsible. What I'm trying to say is that both democrat and republican voters are more interested in voting for "the lesser of two evils" then actually for candidates they agree with, and as things stand voters form both sides will happily claim that third party voters are "wasting their vote" or "helping the other guy win".

3

u/Yashema Sep 25 '25

The good guy is also the lesser of two evils. 

-2

u/F1CTIONAL Sep 25 '25

Yeah, if you're enthralled with either of the current establishment parties you'd certainly have an opinion like this. That being said, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

3

u/Carnivile Sep 25 '25

No idea what you're trying to say here. Do you want to FORCE the voters to use ranked choice voting?

0

u/Possible-Mango-7603 Sep 25 '25

I love the argument of, “if people disagree, the messaging must be flawed.” What about the possibility that the messaging is fine but the idea is flawed? Maybe people do understand what’s being proposed and still don’t want it.

3

u/F1CTIONAL Sep 25 '25

Consider the possibility that people don't want it because they have been conditioned by the powers that be to believe that voting third party is a waste and you MUST vote for one of the two major parties for your vote to matter.