• nintendiator@feddit.cl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Vote. No, really. If people actually fucking voted, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

    Trump won with the popular vote.

    A key element to defeat things like fascism, which build themselves on the popularity of fear, is that voting can’t be free-for-all. Voting should require, or be weighed with, some sort of licensing, testing of sane mind, awareness and understanding of at least current events, review of known association with dangerous anti-society parties, etc.

    • Forbo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 hours ago

      More people didn’t vote than they did for either candidate. Apathy won.

      Means testing voting? What could possibly go wrong?! You do see how horrifically abusable that is, right?

      • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        There has not been an US presidential election where the president got more votes than the number of non-voters. If apathy won then it had won every single time.

          • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            That’s hardly the reason. If you had a multi-party system the voted would be even more spread out between the candidates which makes it even less likely for a candidate to get more votes than the non-voting population. However a multi-party system would significantly lessen the possibility of getting oligarchic control because you wouldn’t have to choose between 2 shitty options, you’d have to have multiple shitty choices for the shittiest one to win.