this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
859 points (96.8% liked)

Political Memes

5431 readers
2916 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hubi@feddit.org 101 points 3 months ago (3 children)

And Americans only have to pick one out of two opposing parties. How hard can it be?

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 58 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The problem is two-fold. The majority of Americans are passively informed, and the majority of our news publications are compromised by wealthy owners.

Also, it’s two months, not three. Early voting ballots go out in the end of September.

[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

and the majority of our news publications are compromised by wealthy owners

This is true in the vast majority of European countries too. If anything, you usually find an exception in a public broadcasting channel, which may or may not be influenced by political officials.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EvilEyedPanda@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Passively informed is an understatement, also we're supposed to be available to work at a moments call, with limited time off availability. Am I gonna just tell my boss I'm leaving early to go vote?

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago

I mean.... Yes?!??... If it's normal for a boss to chew you out for voting, then they're being more transparent about voter suppression than I thought.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 months ago (4 children)

People making a choice isn't the hard part. All 51 different territories having different rules for their elections is the hard part.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago

Most of the problem States purposely fuck things up.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 6 points 3 months ago

After enough elections, you get tired of picking the party that aligns with you on 4% of issues because it's ever so slightly higher than the other party which aligns with you on 0.5%.

[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 36 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You can get rid of your prime ministers pretty easily if they suck. We’re electing what is now essentially a king for at least the next 4 years.

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Or hopefully, this time around, a Queen

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 3 months ago (1 children)

my favorite UK shitpost was liz truss, very funny.

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Lasting shorter than a letuce

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

More education, please. I'm American.

How does this process function?

How does it change the ratchet right effect seen in the US?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 54 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

In a parliamentary system, Prime Ministers aren't elected by popular vote, but instead chosen by Parliament. It's basically like if the Speaker of the House were also the President.


Fun fact: the US system was originally designed to work sort of that way, except they wanted the President to be chosen by all the state legislatures instead of Congress, for extra Federalist separation of powers. That's what the Electoral College is for: they couldn't do "one state rep = one vote" because each state has different numbers of constituents per rep and such, so they needed a "compatibility layer."

Then states immediately fucked up the plan by holding popular votes for Electors instead of having the legislature appoint them, and the rest is history.

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Also, in most European states (France is similar to the US in that point), the head of state (president, king) is not the head of government (prime minister, chancellor). The former may be elected by popular vote, and has mainly representative tasks, the latter usually is elected by the parlament and drives the political decisions.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 4 points 3 months ago

Actually France is a semi-presidential republic, unlike the US. Its President shares the executive power with the Prime Minister.

[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

This makes sense. I'd add that the system of government in the US didn't function as intended in many facets and almost immediately. In respect to the electoral college today, American exceptionalism prevents us accepting that a direct democracy in choosing our President would sentence us to the mediocrity we fear most. We don't understand why we've an electoral college because we broke it before railroads and the cotton gin.

I appreciate the parliamentary system so far for its simplicity relative the US system. But, the good and bad consequences really depends on the nuance.

What compromise must be reached to prevent another election?

What offices are reelected? The entirety of parliament?

[–] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 months ago (4 children)

So the UK is probably the simplest to discuss because it doesn't have a constitution, and this means parliament is sovereign and decides everything by a simple majority vote.

They can pass laws saying that certain things need a super majority, but then they can just turn round and unpass them as well

This means that what you think of as the executive, i.e. the prime minister and all his helpers, can be changed by a simple majority, and an election can be called by one. They don't need to happen at the same time. The last parliament had three different prime ministers without an election, and it's common to switch prime ministers well before an election in order to create an incumbent advantage.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

In parliamentary systems, the government needs to maintain the confidence of the majority. Any elected official can request a vote of confidence be held and, at least in Canada, certain votes are always considered votes of confidence (ex. the government's budget). If a confidence vote fails, parliament dissolves and can't do anything until a new parliament is formed. All seats are up for re-election. Since the government can't do anything until an election is held, they tend to happen very quickly.

The government can prevent a no confidence vote by swaying enough members. It's a bit of a non-issue if the current government already holds the majority of seats. If they don't hold a majority, they'll often make deals with a smaller party in exchange for their confidence. This can be as little as modifying a bill to as much as forming an official coalition and granting members of another party cabinet positions.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There are also semi-presidential republics, which function differently. In those systems, the US-style president role is split into two different roles, president & prime minister. President handles foreign policy, the army and selects the prime minister with the approval of parliament, and the prime minister handles everything domestic. This separation of roles means the amount of damage an individual can do is much more limited.

Edit: Oh, I missed somebody already talked about the French system, which is a semi-presidential system. Oh well, leaving this up for posterity.

[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's not the time that's the issue. It's the eye-watering sums of money you cunts donate to let a politician run a campaign.

What the fuck does someone need $450m for?! Use that to provide support for the homeless, feed the poor, and protect children that need a stable home. You could do so much with that money.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aidan@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It is kinda trolling how you can just call an election when you think your party will do best

[–] merari42@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But it can also go horribly wrong. For example, Cameron called the Brexit referendum without wanting Brexit, which did not go as planned

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Some countries end up with a great PM because everyone else was made inelligible. Looking at you, New Zealand.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Let the Americans have their fun. They love plot twists, a bit of pageantry and pizazz. While they certainly don’t NEED a year-long election cycle, most Americans actively seem to enjoy it.

It creates opportunities to vigorously debate the opposition, run some nice smear campaigns, do a bit of backstabbing, schmooze the big donors, kiss a few babies and add in the odd assassination attempt. You just can’t fit all that drama in a one month cycle like we Europeans like to do.

[–] LastElemental@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

I wish it was only a year. Lately it’s been about a 4 year cycle for the presidential race

[–] ytg@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 months ago (3 children)

And then there's Belgium, which apparently holds the world record for longest time without a government. At least introduce time limits for negotiations, guys…

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

The US also has 5 times as many people as France.

Europe can have snap elections, but we don't try and have elections for every European country at once, with two leaders trying desperately to visit each one to win support.

[–] NIB@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago

You can have 5 times more people counting votes and organizing things. I dont understand this excuse. Democracy can scale, especially nowadays with technology.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

European Parliament elections were like a couple of months ago.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Fuck it. Elections will be a couple of months ago.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They wouldn't need to visit each country, they don't even bother caring about more than 4 states in the US!

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 9 points 3 months ago

That presumes the EU would be dumb enough to try the electoral college on for size again

That's right we know where that shit came from you HRE and PLC descended fuckers!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Omega_Jimes@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

If american democracy was good, other countries would be using it.

load more comments
view more: next ›