Please let me know if this is supposed to be in a different comm
I think that would be pretty funny actually
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
I'd watch a political comedy movie with that premise
Me: "Elections never end (derogatory)!"
Libs: "Elections never end (good)!"
- This is just a never-ending recall
- More likely you'd just have the same president for several decades, not several presidents in one month
More likely you'd just have the same president for several decades, not several presidents in one month
I guess it depends how likely it is you think the few people that do actually change their votes from election to election and "how to change my vote" searchers, presuming that story is real would want that.
No restrictions on who people would vote for might be an interesting factor the US hasn't seen before. You wouldn't need political parties, or even to want to be president, to get elected. Maybe a president that appealed to lots of the electorate and kept doing popular enough things could stay for a long time?
Tabulate votes every 30 seconds so that the presidency can rapidly oscillate
If I can't trade in presidential futures markets, then it's not real democracy 
the line god demands it! also, have every single citizen enrolled in it automatically, so anyone can vote for anyone at any time
Add online voting and provide the option to integrate it into ~~your favorite social media platform~~ ~~Twitter~~ X to verify your account, ~~if you choose~~
have a duplicate copy of every government bulding so no one has to move offices
ANALYZING POST…
This post more appropriately belongs in …
COGITATING
BAD POSTING
I support this actually. They would be constantly accountable. You could marry this with approval voting (vote for as many as you like)
spamming the president like the intelligence in 2fort 
If this were real, I'd dedicate my life to organizing a voting bloc large enough that constantly flip flops so that the executive is in a perpetual state of transition between parties
if you don't have a set time to do the voting then most people will never bother to change their vote
The votes can have an expiration date after they're cast so you have to periodically refresh them.
This still wouldn't cause people to come and do it without an actively push to do it. By-elections get like 10%-30% turnout because they're not part of largescale media about an election day occurring and a major push to drive people to go and vote.
Put it in an app without a specifically scheduled day and the participation would plummet.
Didn't the UK try something like this over the last decade? How'd that work out? Did they get a good one at any point?
In the UK, the prime minister is selected by the ruling party by internal processes of that party, which may involve voting but usually is triggered by various power plays within that party. It doesnt normally happen because switching your leadership multiple times in a single year is a bad look.
For wider democracy, the ruling party can choose to trigger an election early. This is favours the incumbent because it means the ruling party can choose when circumstances are favourable (e.g. financial stability, popular war declared)
It's crazy how uninterested I am in British electoralism. This is the most succinct explanation of it I've seen and my eyes still just sorta brushed past it and I caught myself going to a new tab mid paragraph lmao
No offense to you or anything, just noticing my bias
I guess it matters in the context of discussing electoral options, but it's only tangentially related to OP
no what you said made sense and is good information, especially in this context. i'm just noting something
I once had someone unironically tell me that this would be a good idea
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.
Just give me Cuban style elections without parties or campaign circus.
id want to see that
Didn't they kinda do this in the Paris Commune?