You say "socialist democracy" as distinct from bourgeois elections but socialism describes an economic ideology, not a system of voting. It's not a meaningful differentiator to show how your system is different. That alone makes me get the feeling you're kinda just tossing word salads here. But, I would like you to explain what you mean before I dismiss it as such--- perhaps it has a meaning I'm unfamiliar with.
precondition you wait for, it is forged through struggle. The 90% figure is wrong for a start, even in the US communist sympathys are quickly growing
Rapidly growing, part of why I'm optimistic in a peaceful solution. But I would say that's much more for socialism than communism.
Bourgeois democracy won't let you vote through its own abolition.
The beautiful part of democracy, even flawed ones, is that it can't stop you once you gather enough support, it will bend to your will
It's quite possible it's too late for the usa, but I still do want other democracies to push for it. Only 4 odd countries have it worldwide.
Worth saying, while grassroots is less common, it is not gone. Kat in il-9 is somewhat a good example of this though she failed community engagement and came from out of town so she's unlikely to win. Though it is arguable how grassroots she is. Of course the top priority is revoking citizens united.
It's one of the simplest ways of helping push countries to the left, because it allows you to have people vote for the leftist politicians without worrying about boosting a right wing politician or party, as first past the post forces, and also not forcing people to vote for parties, which lock out leftist candidates from being able to gain traction as easily such as in proportional voting systems.
Ranked choice and proportional voting are 2 very different concepts. You are falsely pretending they're similar when they're wildly different concepts. Only Ireland presently uses it from the eu, because they as well have an establishment, and ranked choice voting is anti establishment at its core.
Why are you trying to pretend they're the same concept?
How do you expect to have a revolution if 90% of people don't agree with your viewpoint? And I say that as a socialist. Pushing forward the agenda over the course of decades is more likely to be successful than a single revolution, in my opinion.
You do realize that ranked choice voting is one of the simplest and least violent ways to push forward progressive candidates right? Because it makes people comfortable with voting options that with first past the post would be throw away votes
Pritzker. Relatively progressive. Pro union, pro building up housing, pro worker's rights, pro higher minimum wage, unrestrained in his support of lgbtq, and yet still Measured and budget conscious, which helps him be more palatable to the big stage.
I think he's the best possible option that still has a good chance to win.
Politely, a lot of people don't think that way, especially communists and anarchists which are common ideologies on lemmy. They truly do think of it as end all police.
Friendly reminder that south korea is a straight up oligarchy. They're doing good in the instance, but they're not as much better than the usa as they would like you to think
Brainless and cruel. I know some absolute morons who still vote democratic because they're fundamentally good people. They don't hate people on the basis of being gay, or race, so they vote democratic.
A hobby farm is absolutely sprawl. I'm not going to go out here and say every farm is sprawl;but if your farm is just for hobby? Yeah absolutely. Though to be fair it really does depend on yields...
They get mad at the very idea that people can work together and successfully create change, despite numerous historical examples. It's actively immature to be wholly cynical
Each of the 13 justices gets a 13 year term, each justice could serve up to two terms, consecutive or not,
Absolutely not. You NEED it to be one term, because judges should never have to rely on approval of others for their jobs. The only reason they should be able to be removed after appointment is a severe ethics violation.
You say "socialist democracy" as distinct from bourgeois elections but socialism describes an economic ideology, not a system of voting. It's not a meaningful differentiator to show how your system is different. That alone makes me get the feeling you're kinda just tossing word salads here. But, I would like you to explain what you mean before I dismiss it as such--- perhaps it has a meaning I'm unfamiliar with.
Rapidly growing, part of why I'm optimistic in a peaceful solution. But I would say that's much more for socialism than communism.
The beautiful part of democracy, even flawed ones, is that it can't stop you once you gather enough support, it will bend to your will