💀
@Jain @colonelj @TheAncestor
Blob.cat yes, it's left. But it's not like it's in a bubble, and from what I've seen, Mew managed to draw in A LOT of right-wingers into arguments.
@TheAncestor @Jain @colonelj
That would be the best timeline. I'm just not sure if we're on it. If there was actual trust in the results of this election, we would have been there.
@Jain @colonelj @TheAncestor
100% agree. But I foresee it won't happen. I mean, why would it? Democrats have a system that works for them, so why oppose it, and republican politicians don't seem to actually give a crap either and have been ready to capitulate from before the elections took place.
I'm quite used to uncertainty in Romanian elections too. Our common not-joke joke is that both leading parties steal just enough votes to cancel each other out. Problem is, the signs for potential fraud in USA have been way above what even I'm used to seeing, and the response to investigate and prosecute has been lower than what happens here.
because, the democrats should stand up for their name and thus should be interested in a reviewed/modified election process as well.
In my view, the Republicans in particular no longer have confidence in the electoral system, so it wouldn't hurt them to help and do this together.
For example, it also wouldn't hurt to consider a construct that allows and encourages more parties than just 2.
@Jain @colonelj @TheAncestor
>because, the democrats should stand up for their name
Ha! Like they stand up for free speech like the good liberals they are? Oh wait...
Yes they should stand up for all that, but it seems they're only capable of doing it when it's in their interest (of course, that's not saying republicans are any better). So sure, US might get some kind of reform for election security once the current status quo doesn't work for them anymore. Republicans have had a decently long history of asking for this, so I don't expect them to reject such a proposal, but they seem to be either too lazy or cowardly to make it happen on their own.
>it also wouldn't hurt to consider a construct that allows and encourages more parties than just 2.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: a multi party system is not a holy grail solution. It brings it's own fucked up problems. Romanian had parliamentary elections just a few months ago (this is important because it's the parliament that picks the prime minister/government). And guess what, after the election, the party that got most votes was kept out of government because the rest of the parties made a post-election alliance to create a majority capable of voting in their government. And it's a shit storm of political parties that don't belong together, not to mention that I'm 100% confident some parties wouldn't have received the same amount of votes from the people if the alliance was made public before the election. Or in other words, they basically stole the election in front of everyone, and it was 100% legal too. There's nothing anyone can do about it.
