Biden 'not confident' of peaceful transition if Trump loses
bbc.com
US President Joe Biden has said he is not confident there will be a peaceful transition of power if Donald Trump loses the presidential election in November.
"[Trump] means what he says, we don’t take him seriously. He means it, all this stuff about ‘if we lose it will be a bloodbath’.”
Mr Trump’s comment that it would “be a bloodbath for the country” if he loses the election, made as he was talking about the auto industry in March, triggered a wave of criticism.
The Trump campaign, however, said the comment was specifically about the auto industry and had been deliberately taken out of context. It sent a fundraising email which said Trump’s political opponents and others had been "viciously" misquoting him.
You are viewing a single comment
Vote for the candidate you want, and then put the moderate as your second choice, shuffle them all together and oh look the moderate got the nom, but has to campaign in such a way as to please the democratic plurality of a multi party system.
How many "crazy people" have been put forth as the Canadian Conservative Party candidate? As the general elections went in 2021, one of the most contentious in recent history, it looked like there was a plurality there. The outcome, and current scandals not withstanding within the Canadian governemnt, there aren't assassination attempts creating articles from reputable sources giving serious credence to civil war.
https://theconversation.com/one-inch-from-a-potential-civil-war-near-miss-in-trump-shooting-is-also-a-close-call-for-american-democracy-234628.
Seems like a two party system might create some tribalism there, let's look back at the Canadian Parliament, with a lot of different parties in the parliament compromising and doing politics. Looks like a lot of pluralism there.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes
Now let's take a look at what the US Congress has been up to recently
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes
Weird, outside of a universal vote to go on vacation, I don't really see a plurality there. Mostly along a two party line.
I wonder how we got there? I bet someone smarter than I has thought of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
Oh they did.
Moving back to the threat of political violence, which is a much larger conversation than ranked choice voting. Could a two party system contribute to that? Could other countries with a binary politcal system face the same issues?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/rising-tide-political-violence
Huh could the very nature of a two party system, encourage political tribalism and disincentivize political collobaration?
https://voices.uchicago.edu/dangerousthoughts/2016/05/14/political-tribalism-and-identity-politics/
https://www.power3point0.org/2019/01/15/conformation-bias-political-tribalism-as-a-driver-of-disinformation/
What does the future of the US want?
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09/as-partisan-hostility-grows-signs-of-frustration-with-the-two-party-system/
Huh, thank goodness we don't have to deal with those pesky crazies in the Canadian Conservative Party ranked primaries.
I don’t see why you skip my entire point of it just increasing the number of shitty candidates. You say the “moderate” gets chosen, but what’s the mean when 4/5s of the pool is poison?
The fact you just straight to Trump-assassination whataboutism is fucked, and this whole mathematical law regarding duopoly again flies past my point. Providing more candidates that are shit only ratchets the equation towards shit. That’s not to say having more than two parties is bad… I’m saying the political foundation in America is so bad that implementing ranked choice before destroying the influence of capital only increases the chance of capital winning.
Do you know how Ranked Choice works? I explained it in a sentence. You keep agreeing with my points. The Moderate wins and has to take the 4/5ths into consideration. What you're describing with your pool of poison is a problem with the conservative party and not with ranked choice voting. You can happily look at the voting turn out in Australia, and Australian exit polls to directly refute your point of poison.
Whatboutism? You didn't even read my post. I'm saying that a First Past the Post voting leads to tribalism that can lead to political extremism and violence. Which is clearly illustrated in every research paper, article, and government report I shared with you.
You've responded with an opinion, and your opinion of one minor part of a much larger Canadian political system. Again.
More choice breeds better results for a larger portion of the population. The fact that our extremism here in America cannot even take serious root in Canada is a great point to the benefits of a pluralistic government. But sure. Whataboutism .Yeah.
It’s “whataboutism” because using a closed Republican-on-Republican violence is kind of ridiculous when you say my point about “poisoned pools” is only a problem within the Conservative party.
I’m saying ranked voting only helps when it’s backed by a legitimate and healthy political environment. One that America and Canada do not have. Man we’re just talking past eachother, cause some ignorant Aussie (you) thinks he understands American politics. Brother, I understand math, but these people can legally throw money at the literal Supreme Court and it’s completely legal. That’s not a healthy environment. Citizens United would mean every pool in the USA would be full of poison.
The Balkanization of the Republican Party is driven by political tribalism. I don't think you have a very strong grasp on political theory or how absolutely fucked we are down here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization
I'm not the person who said
That was @BigBoyBarry
Look at my comment history, I was born in America and have lived here all my life. I've voted in every primary I qualify to vote in and every presidential election since I turned 18.
You might want to read the usernames of the people you're replying to.
If your point now is that ranked choice voting would increase voting turnout, thus reducing the chance of Balkanization — I understand I guess. But RC isn’t going to fix the fact only 1 candidate is going to win, and doesn’t guarantee some better percentage breakdown in representation. Like you should maybe clarifying why the Republicans are balkanizing specifically, because even Musk would argue it’s a problem of Democrats. I just dont really understand what youre getting at
Um, where do you know in Western Politics that there's more than one winner in an election?
But the opposite if FPTP is using a representative set. Like if youre american you must see that “constantly pushing for centrism” only pushes you rightward when Republicans push so hard for their policies
That's the whole point of people wanting ranked choice, then they can make their voice heard by voting for more progressive candidates while not having to worry that they're voting for someone who can't win and are therefore technically supporting the party they don't want to win. The more votes third party candidates get, the more seriously they get taken even if they don't win. You can't do that with a two party system.
All the people who you're worried about voting for the "crazies" are already voting for the crazies, you're not going to get current moderates or progressives all of a sudden voting for the crazies because there are more options of crazy so I'm not sure what you're worried about.
Except even in progressive spaces you can easily flood the zone with trash and hand-wave it away on proportion. Y’all keep wishing for your demise, this is what the left does after all
Your initial misunderstanding is that you're only thinking within the acceptable terms. Two things I think you might want to consider.
First you've alluded to it multiple times which is the Overton Window. Which is shifting, but not only to the right in American politics. If you read the links I posted earlier, political violence in America is becoming more acceptable to the left as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
The other is that there is such a thing as manufactured consent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
You've also referenced that there's lobbying and wealthy interest that gain undue power in a political system through what amounts to corruption but is called lobbying and regulatory capture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
The best bet to defeat all of these. Believe it or not is ranked choice voting. Be prepared though, what follows is a special interest fire hose.
A primer on what it could start as in the US https://www.npr.org/2023/12/13/1214199019/ranked-choice-voting-explainer
How it can make lasting change https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/12/politics/ranked-choice-voting-ctzn/index.html
How it leads to more moderate candidates https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-08-02/ranked-choice-voting-can-result-in-more-moderate-candidates
And finally if you have the bandwidth for it a very wonky deep dive into plurality politics and their historical outcomes, and how the wealthy often fight them. https://brill.com/view/journals/copr/14/4/article-p416_416.xml
More moderate candidates in an a cesspool just gives you garbage. Lmfao “the left is pushing the overton window and wants violence” is some tripe. Trump was shot by a Republican. It sounds like youre a propagandized American that grew up in neoliberal hellscape. Why should anyone believe the rest. You’re not worth the price of the bytes on disk. “Manufacturing consent”, like Kamala, right? Like Bush, right? Man I don’t know what point you make, you just use buzzwords and say that proves a point. Wrap yourself in your fantastical solutions that will continue to lock yourself in the hellscape without actually solving anything. Whatever.
You've been here only 3 days and already are so defensive. I've decided that you're willfully ignorant, unwilling to read sources, and are unable to post supporting sources for your points.
I hope you heal your ego and reconsider your position. Have a calmer night. I'm not going to engage further with you about this as you are not able to support your argument or consider a viewpoint outside of your own. I don't want to contribute to the divisiveness of the situation, no matter how much I shit post here. I think this might be of interest to you. I'll give you some sources for the United States, since you as a Canadian have such a strong rigid opinion on our politics.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-tech-platforms-fuel-u-s-political-polarization-and-what-government-can-do-about-it/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-social-media-makes-us-more-polarized-and-how-to-fix-it/
It’s hilarious that you consider the shit you’ve posted as “sources” as most of this is bottom-barrel definitions. There were some actual sources regarding implementation, which are interesting, but I see no gain in opening up a system that is already incredibly abused. Everyone always skips the whole “getting money out of politics” angle, and somehow believe this system will rid them of that.
I'm lost, you can read my responses but not my sources.... I think it might be reading comprehension and not literacy that is your problem.