Please let me know if this is supposed to be in a different comm
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
146 points (99.3% liked)
badposting
535 readers
547 users here now
badposting is a comm where you post badly
This is not a !the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net alternative. This is not a !memes@hexbear.net alternative. This is a place for you to post your bad posts.
Ever had a really shitty bit idea? Joke you want to take way past the point of where it was funny? Want to feel like a stand-up comedy guy who's been bombing a set for the past 30 minutes straight and at this point is just saying shit to see if people react to it? Really bad pun? A homemade cringe concoction? A cognitohazard that you have birthed into this world and have an urge to spread like chain mail?
Rules:
- Do not post good posts.
- Unauthorized goodposting is to be punished in the manner of commenting the phrase "GOOD post" followed by an emoji that has not yet been used in the thread
- Use an emoticon/kaomoji/rule-three-abiding ASCII art if the rations run out
- This is not a comm where you direct people to other people's bad posts. This is a comm where you post badly.
- This rule intentionally left blank.
- If you're struck for rule 3, skill issue, not allowed to complain about it.
Code of Conduct applies just as much here as it does everywhere else. Technically, CoC violations are bad posts. On the other hand: L + ratio + get ~~better~~ worse material bozo
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Unironically why would it be a bad idea though?
it would be impossible to get anything done because it necessitates endless campaigning; with no minimum term, all of your focus and all of your supporters' focus would have to be directed at keeping you in power
the moment you stop focusing on staying in to do something else, one of your opponents gets in, and then you can't do anything
It would be like direct democracy for everything, only indirect, with the people not actually voting on issues.
It would make each candidate extremely averse to doing anything that might upset people, and end up orienting all policies toward short-term results.
It would require a huge amount of infrastructure and time, basically incorporating 30 minutes or more out of everyone's day just to run these perpetual elections, not including looking up all the issues. Turnout would suffer, and people with the time and that kind of patience for it would be disproportionately represented. A liberal's wet dream. I can't even say I'd do the daily voting myself.
I think the potential for a long term presidency would encourage longer term planning actually. I think the average person has the potential to be much more engaged than they currently are. Don't you think "I do my political duty and then I don't have to pay attention for four years" allows politicians to get away with things they wouldn't be if they were at all times directly answering to their constituents and their constituents knew that? I think even that framing is giving too much credit to the idea that the masses are and always will be a bunch of NPC pawns.
I don't see why it would take time out of everyone's day. If your vote(s) haven't changed you don't have to go vote every single day to keep them the same. Turnout could be mandatory every x period of time, even if it means submitting a blank ballot.
5% turnout that is construed as 90% participation? Votes being counted on behalf of people forgetting or neglecting to vote? I can't see how that could go wrong.
You have to care a lot to go wait in line for 2 hours on one specific day, but if you could vote any day with no line that makes it 100 times easier for people who have limited transportation to have their vote counted, even if it's some years out of date that's going to be a positive.
If we must put it in terms of an election cycle, then yeah even then. If your vote is still "valid" insofar as that person is still alive and running, I think its better to assume that you still support them vs 1/3rd turnout that we see now. You can vote any given day, so "forgetting" isn't really an issue. If you neglect to vote then you must not care that much about being counted in support of that person.
How do you see it being gamed in a way that the current 4-year cycle isn't just as bad or worse?
Voter registration is about 75%, and turnout among registered voters is 60-80% depending on regular or midterm and how excited they are.
Every-day voting makes it easier for outrage to halt a policy. And I still think lots of people wouldn't care enough to vote.
Total instability. Constantly changing governments, rules, laws, regulations, and so on.
Don't you think it's more likely we get someone generally liked and they stick around for 25 years or so with a high favorability?
If that were the case, we'd have that regardless of what voting system we use.
Without term limits, a lot of the time we would. I think it's also safe to assume we would get more parties running closer to the actual center, which is much to the left of what is currently thought of as the "center". The parties would have a shorter list of differences between them and even in the event of rapid cycling it would be somewhat less jarring.
It doesn't fix the core issues with dead-end liberal electoralism don't get me wrong, it just takes away some of the tricks they use to manufacture consent. They would never allow it.