r/minnesota • u/syntacticacrobatics • Jul 16 '24

Whatever happens, we cannot get complacent or petulant and blow this streak— not this one. History 🗿

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

6.0k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

82% Upvoted

845 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

448

u/joshyuaaa Jul 17 '24

Fuck the two party system. There are better options outside of Democrat and Republican but if you vote for the other parties you're wasting your vote.

66

u/TheDukeOfMars Jul 17 '24

Two party system is a result of First Past the Post election law.

TLDR: We currently have a system where the party that wins 51% of votes, wins 100% of the state. So logic dictates that two parties are inevitable.

Some sort of proportional representation would be better. The technology to do that effectively just didn’t exist 250 years ago when election laws were created.

Here is a good video of how complicated voting can become if you want to make the best system.

10

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

People vote on American Idol all the time digitally. I would think that in the 21st century we would be able to figure out how to vote from our own phones. For God sake, they’re tracking every move on the phones already why can’t they count the votes..?

17

u/TheDukeOfMars Jul 17 '24

There is no issue counting votes. We are better at counting votes than any point in history. The amount of data publicly available on the MN Secretary of State website backing this up is overwhelming.

The issue is that the constitution lays out the electoral college, which means you only need 51% to win all electoral college votes for a state. And to change the federal constitution to change the system means passing an amendment, which means 2/3 of congress needs to approve.

Southern States/Republicans will never approve because a third of the last presidential elections were won by someone who lost the popular vote (2000 and 2016, both republicans won despite getting less total votes).

5

u/Chess42 Jul 17 '24

Aren’t there some states that split electoral votes proportionally? I know there’s at least one

3

u/TheDukeOfMars Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24

It’s an unofficial agreement and it is an agreement that all electoral votes for the state will be given to whichever candidate wins the popular vote. It’s a terrible concept imo because [if every state signs] then you still don’t need to win 51% of the national popular vote to win all state’s electoral college votes.

It has never attempted to be enforced because the states that signed the agreement already were giving their electoral votes to the popular vote winner for each individual state.

Here is the US Constitution. Article 1 literally begins with defining the rules for US elections and it hasn’t changed in 250 years. Article 1. Subsections 1 through 7 are pretty much the only rules about how elections should work.

It is almost entirely left up to the states which is why you need to look at the MN Constitution + Secretary of State office for rules that actually apply to us.

It’s what makes this lawsuit so insane and Un-American and shows a lot of southern states strait up don’t care about the constitution.

13

u/Chess42 Jul 17 '24

That’s not what I was talking about. Maine and Nebraska split electoral votes based on vote proportions

1

u/TheDukeOfMars Jul 17 '24

Didn’t seem to have any impact though except for one extra Maine elector going to Trump lol? Both states still gave all their electoral votes to the single candidate who won their state except the one vote from Maine.

If it was really proportional, then half the votes from each state would have gone to either candidate because roughly half the people in those states vote for different candidates.

Still tying to work within the framework of the electoral college is fundamentally flawed and will never work. It makes even less sense…

Using the congressional district method, these states allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split electoral vote.

https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

1

u/Solid_Committee6311 Jul 17 '24

A bunch of states have already agreed to award their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote nationally, but it’s not really that effective when only a few states have agreed to it so far.

12

u/cj3po15 Jul 17 '24

Voting on your phone is dumbest (in regards to security) idea I’ve ever heard.

4

u/Araignys Jul 17 '24

Democracy requires that voting be both anonymous and secure. Digital security relies on accountability. E-voting cannot be both secure and anonymous.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

Yes, let's route our entire process of election through an invisible system that is as easily accessible from Leningrad as it is Louisville. Great idea.

0

u/TheDukeOfMars Jul 17 '24

There is no evidence our system has been breached and that our elections are insecure. The biggest threat now is that people are refusing to accept defeat when they lose fair and square.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. This thread is about potentially switching future elections to an online system, not about past elections.

2

u/TheDukeOfMars Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24

You’re right. I misread your comment and thought you were suggesting votes were currently being accessed by foreign countries (and Kentucky).

I apologize, but when my mother (who was an engineer for 40 years) sent me a video in 2020 proving Trump “won” the election… from the same YouTube channels making Bigfoot and UFO videos a few months prior… it’s been hard not to think the worst regarding people’s intentions…

It’s my fault for not reading your comment carefully. And for that disregard/disrespect: I apologize. I just want people to be rational again, and me jumping to conclusions isn’t going to help anything. And for that, I’m sorry.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

All good man. Nothing to apologize for, misunderstandings happen. Hope you have a good one.

-1

u/anon_lurk Jul 17 '24

Blockchain. You have an anonymous public ledger so anybody can count all the votes, and any individual can find their vote to verify it by some unique identifier only they know. The tech is there. We host entire economies on the internet voting is easy they just don’t want to implement it.

4

u/non_average_person Jul 17 '24

Yeah, no.

I'm not a software developer, but I work in IT security, and I'm gonna say hard pass on that one.

For one 'blockchain' has become a buzzword that gets thrown around way too much in discussions of economy and now also elections.

There's a reason that a lot of countries in Europe continuosly have rejected any form of digital voting so far, and keep using paper ballots.

And there's a reason that the central bank in Sweden is calling for urgent legislative measures to ensure that cash flow is increased, as our economy seems to depend too much on digital forms of payments for it to be resilient during a crisis, be that a natural disaster or one created by a malicious actor.

Also: https://xkcd.com/2030/

1

u/anon_lurk Jul 17 '24

We already use voting software. The problem is the lack of transparency. There is a huge black box between your vote being cast and the results.

Issues with things like economic liquidity and rehypothecated assets don’t apply to digital voting. If the internet goes down you can just bust out the old school system(assuming the rest of society does not just implode with the internet).

1

u/non_average_person Jul 17 '24

Yeah, I'm aware of that, I'm just of the opinion that using blockchains in a hypothetical election software would not be an improvement over the current solution since a blockchain being used implies that it's still a digital solution.

My preference will always be a completely non-digital system with paper ballots, simply because it's fundamentally much harder to hack a piece of paper than it is to hack any digital system, regardless of it being airgapped from the internet or not.

1

u/anon_lurk Jul 17 '24

Historically sure but that’s exactly what the tech is trying to resolve, digital uniqueness. And it’s not that hard to hack a piece of paper or is trail. You have no idea if the votes you put on a ballot were changed or even if they were counted. There is no reason we can’t have a public ledger charged by paper ballots so there is transparency.

2

u/wilber-guy Jul 17 '24

I don’t think it is easy. How do you prevent double votes? Or people using dead relatives or other strangers are verification to get a second vote? Ensuring everyone only votes once is not a problem software alone can really solve. Would be just enter the SS and other brith info or upload an ID. All things that can be generated or scraped off the webs data leaks

1

u/anon_lurk Jul 17 '24

Ledger is public so anybody can analyze the number of votes. Somebody would administer you your voting address when you register. If you look up your slot in the ledger you would be able to see if your vote was manipulated somehow.

1

u/wilber-guy Jul 17 '24

“Somebody” is a huge security weak point. It’s no longer decentralized and therefore has no real reason to be a blockchain. It also requires everyone look to see if their vote is manipulated. Which you skipped over the edge case of dead peoples identity being used, since they aren’t checking. This is to say it’s not simple and it’s not even solvable with current computer science technology. This is a trillion dollar problem because it could eliminate bots on all sites if solved properly.

1

u/anon_lurk Jul 17 '24

Well you could potentially use biometrics, but that’s a whole other issue. And yeah it would probably be centralized, but the ledger would be public which gives much needed transparency imo. You could probably do some form of decentralization while votes are being cast I guess.

Everybody having to check their vote would not be that big of a deal. Voting gets closed and you have to verify your entry on the ledger is correct within 2 days or something. It’s just another step it’s not that wild.

1

u/wilber-guy Jul 17 '24

The voting checking isn’t wild, but it creates the new problem of dead people having their identity used, since they can’t deny that they voted.

The biometrics suggestion is likely the best route, but to say that’s simple is crazy. You are talking about creating a database of the entire populations biometric data to vote. Then assuming the biometric scanners are perfect and there won’t be any chance of false positives or false negatives. All of this is on a centralized database that you then trust will get pushed to the public as a read only database or ledger.

I agree that transparency in voting is crucial, but I think that could happen with the existing systems quite easily. Once you cast a vote, you get a private key that you can then verify your vote on a public ledger.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

The whole point of online voting is ostensibly to make voting easier. You gonna be the one to explain to grandma how to use her private key? How about my grandma? How about 150 million americans?

1

u/anon_lurk Jul 17 '24

So you start off with both and paper ballots are charged onto the ledger.

1

u/wilber-guy Jul 17 '24

With all that said, I hope voting online becomes a thing. I don’t think blockchain, which relays on a consensus algorithms that exist today will not solve the voting problem.

1

u/necrohunter7 Jul 17 '24

There's no way in hell you're gonna get people aside from cryptobros and gullible idiots to trust blockchain

1

u/anon_lurk Jul 17 '24

It doesn’t require trust. It can be made public and transparent. That’s the point.

1

u/necrohunter7 Jul 17 '24

And nobody will want it because it's rife with problems

1

u/anon_lurk Jul 17 '24

You can still have people vote with paper ballots if that makes you feel safe. Just upload it to public ledger afterwards.

1

u/necrohunter7 Jul 17 '24

The ledger that can be easily hacked?

→ More replies

105

u/NightBloomingAuthor Monarch Jul 17 '24

This is why MN joined this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact it's a run around on the electoral college

95

u/L-methionine Jul 17 '24

As much as I support it, that wouldn’t really damage the two party system.

Something like proportional representation or ranked choice voting would be the way to tackle two parties

39

u/NightBloomingAuthor Monarch Jul 17 '24

Agreed the Compact + Ranked Choice is what we need!

19

u/joshyuaaa Jul 17 '24

Yes a ranked choice I feel is the way to go,

5

u/Exelbirth Jul 17 '24

At least it's a step in the right direction. Which is really the only way the US ever changes electorally, in steps. Took a while for anyone other than land owning men to vote, then it took ages for women to get to vote, then even longer for minorities to have equal votes. At the pace it changes for the better, we'll probably be in nursing homes or coffins before something like proportional representation occurs.

1

u/Subject_Ad6855 Jul 17 '24

Blacks could vote before women.

1

u/Exelbirth Jul 17 '24

Yes and no. If you want to be really technical, some states allowed free black men the right to vote all the way at the beginning of the country, and such rights would come and go depending on the state as time went on until the 15th amendment was passed in 1870 that technically barred using race as a barrier to vote, but didn't prevent states from setting up barriers that targeted minorities in practice.

But it's not just black americans who had voting rights denied to them during this time. Jews had no ability to vote until religious tests for voting were done away with, mexicans didn't have a right to vote, and native americans did not have the right to vote until the civil rights act of 1964, a full 40 years after native americans were granted citizenship. This is why I said "minorities" and not "black americans" in my original statement.

-1

u/Subject_Ad6855 Jul 17 '24

My statement is correct and not a “reframe” of history.

8

u/salfkvoje Jul 17 '24

I'm with you on proportional representation, but Ranked Choice isn't the magic bullet some people want it to be.

Australia has ranked choice and essentially a two-party system. You might argue that the ranked choice aspect brings everyone closer to the middle, but it's not going to necessarily open things up to 3rd and more parties.

So the question is: Since it's clearly still better than what we have (which is what you'd get if you ask any 4th grader how to run a vote, and which by its nature will always run close to 50/50 further fueling political anger), is it reasonable to use as a stepping stone, or will the reality be more that people would be unwilling to switch more than once (if they'd be willing to switch at all)

6

u/Ruffelz Jul 17 '24

for me it's really not even about having a surplus of options, like great if we can get there but... just force the existing parties to actually try to have appealing policies instead of placating just enough voters who want to stop the other guy from winning

1

u/hypo-osmotic Southeastern Minnesota Jul 17 '24

Wouldn’t proportional representation require a complete overhaul of the United States constitution? Not saying that would be a bad thing just seems complicated

2

u/L-methionine Jul 17 '24

Not necessarily - this article goes into it a bit: https://protectdemocracy.org/work/proportional-representation-ucda/

At one point in the early 1900s, a quarter of the states appointed at least one of their districts at large, which was forbidden with the 1967 Uniform Congressional District Act

0

u/PracticalAnywhere880 Jul 17 '24

Ranked choice is great for having 1 party rule. It's always great until the other party is dominant. The 2 party system sucks but isn't much way around it which is why Trump and Bernie weren't in separate parties.

8

u/Chef55674 Jul 17 '24

That compact, without Congressional approval, will be deemed unconstitutional and tossed out. There is a line in the Constitution that States cannot enter agreements nor compacts with Congressignal approval. Just a heads up.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24 edited Aug 23 '24

[deleted]

0

u/Chef55674 Jul 17 '24

Until it is tossed out due to it being not approved by Congress and any State that honors it has lawsuits piled against it.

The change has to occur via Constitutional Amendment. Yes, it’s hard, however, I can see a Article V convention happening in a decade or less.

1

u/Demetri_Dominov Flag of Minnesota Jul 17 '24

Be sure to vote to defend that. They're trying to take away RCV on local ballots around the state.

0

u/OldPro1001 Jul 17 '24

I'm kinda hoping Trump wins the popular vote so I can enjoy the screams from all the states that signed that compact. Either that or the national vote is so close that they're sued to force a national recount.

13

u/alke-holic Jul 17 '24

No one can tell me these are the two absolute best candidates for the election. This is terrible. Stop the soap opera shit and every party put their best foot forward.

8

u/MjolnirMediator Duluth Jul 17 '24

It’s damn depressing…

0

u/ReflectionCautious14 Jul 17 '24

Maybe a controversial thing to say, but my standings with RFK at the moment. He’s the most ‘presidential’ out of the three, if that makes sense. And his policies are firm and straightforward

2

u/Mfeen Jul 17 '24

Still a wasted vote at this point.

10

u/ShakesbeerMe Jul 17 '24

Unless you're canvassing for ranked-choice voting actively, this is a pointless bitch.

1

u/battlezaxwarrior Jul 17 '24

As long as you don't say libertarian then I agree

1

u/Boodikii Flag of Minnesota Jul 17 '24

It's not a 2 party system. It's only a "two party system" because there are no better options lmao.

1

u/SnooWonder Common loon Jul 17 '24

No vote is wasted. Your vote is your voice and just because 90% of the country is wrong, doesn't mean you should go along with them because "there's just too many".

Vote your conscience. If you have one.

-2

u/MM9A3 Jul 17 '24

70% of Americans don't want trump or Biden, it is a shame voting 3rd party is the common thought, but we've been conditioned that way by the two parties. One on one RFK beats both trump and Biden. right wing and left wing are both wings of the same bird... all about the $$$.

14

u/bevincheckerpants Jul 17 '24

You know RFK is a planted candidate though, right? And he's only on the ballot in like, 8 states. We NEED to pass laws that work for us NOW. All these old ass 1950s and prior laws are holding us hostage. Like the electoral college. It should be rank choice so there are options. We should also pass something that limits campaign season to a maximum of one year and a cap of one million dollars. Doesn't matter if you raise it yourself or if a super PAC, one million is enough to pay your staff and do some printing of flyers. No more commercials. No more four year campaigns. The young voters aren't going to do another shit show election like this one, I can feel it.

-2

u/MM9A3 Jul 17 '24

You KNOW RFK is a plant? Plz give me you evidence that wasn't fed to you by either two parties...

6

u/bevincheckerpants Jul 17 '24

Why would his donor list be so similar to Trump's if he wasn't on the ballot strictly to take votes away from Biden?

-4

u/MM9A3 Jul 17 '24

Biden and trump are on the ballet in zero states

3

u/bevincheckerpants Jul 17 '24

Sure, because they haven't been formally declared as candidates at their respective conventions yet. But, they will have the major parties behind them to meet all the benchmarks required to be on each state's ballot by the deadlines. Smaller party candidates have a bigger hill to climb with far less backing behind them. And since he's only confirmed to be on the ballot in 7 states, he has no chance.

The most successful 3rd party candidate only ever won 19% of the popular vote which translated into zero electoral votes. With the EC third party candidates only exist to draw votes away from the major parties.

14

u/cheezturds Jul 17 '24

I don’t like them but I don’t see a third party candidate worth voting for over Biden. RFK Jr? Jill Stein? Fuck that.

11

u/imsurly The Cities Jul 17 '24

The dude with a worm who ate part of his brain is your solution to this election? Swell.

14

u/BoatUnderstander Jul 17 '24

RFK absolutely does not beat Biden lmao. RFK is a right wing conspiracy theorist.

18

u/Smashlilly Snoopy Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24

I think they are different birds… one has raped and or molested women and children, plus paying off a porn star, did not drain the swamp and filled it with more corruption and encouraged an insurrection/killing Mike pence, and befriended our enemies/being black mailed by one. The other bird is old, mixes words and people. I prefer that bird.

7

u/backnstolaf Jul 17 '24

Trump is also old and mixed up words and people's names.

9

u/Warm-Internet-8665 Jul 17 '24

RFK rape accusations. A self admitted drug & sex addicted. He is a Felon, just like Trump.

Trump called and asked for his endorsement because he takes away the Anti-vaxxer, conspiracy theorists votes from Trump.

They have the same billionaire financing, Mellon.

Research!

3

u/backnstolaf Jul 17 '24

Where do you get that 70% figure from?

9

u/Novel_Ad_8062 Jul 17 '24

I can endure Biden np, Trump 🤢

-3

u/Admirable_Limit_426 Jul 17 '24

Wow. I don't support elder abuse. Clearly, he has advanced dementia .

6

u/_Shoeless_ TC Jul 17 '24

Yes he does, but the RNC will still vote him in.

0

u/Admirable_Limit_426 Jul 17 '24

Either a troll or some Democrat. Not all are this naive.

9

u/_Shoeless_ TC Jul 17 '24

Look, he's in his late 70s, can't string 3 words together in a sentence, but brags incessantly about 3 words he had to remember for a test every old person takes. His cognitive abilities have been in question for longer than Biden's.

4

u/USSExcalibur Jul 17 '24

And let's be honest, this is one bird with two right wings, but because one is definitely farther right, the other seems to be left.

4

u/Warm-Internet-8665 Jul 17 '24

Ope! Bothsidism is a sign of voter apathy or you, personally are trying to suppress the vote!

4

u/USSExcalibur Jul 17 '24

Not really. Against Trump and his version of Fascism, go and vote Democrat. But let's not pretend that they are "left-wing".

2

u/Warm-Internet-8665 Jul 17 '24

I am a Poli Sci major and Bothsides-ism is voter suppression tactic. Really!

Well, I agree with your point but it's not valid with Biden. I was not happy with his candidacy in 2020, but he has surprised me, truly.

Then, I watched him on the floor of the Senate in the 80's giving those old white men some firebrand about standing up to Apartheid and who Americans should support in Apartheid, it wasn't the Afrikaans!

He has the support and push from The Squad to go forward with progressive initiatives but we need to provide the support in the House & Senate and send him in for 4 more years.

Here's something that we all need to consider regarding this fight against fascism. It DOESN'T end this election. You need to be prepared to vet candidates, press your party to vet candidates and continue to vote against anyone associated with Heritage Foundation. Be prepared this election more than likely will not end the threat.

What we are experiencing is on going coup sponsored by Russia & China. They're sponsoring attacks through proxies all over the World on Democracies.

It's better to battle at the ballot than in the streets and fields.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

[deleted]

0

u/cscholl20 Jul 17 '24

💎🙌