No, we need people. All kinds of people. As many people as we can possibly get. Absolutely NOBODY who is considering attending a protest should be told to stay home.
I attend protests all the time. Ever since my early 20s (which was over 15 years ago) I've made it a point to attend at least 1 protest every month. For the past 8 years that's been closer to weekly than monthly. I have plenty of experience at protests. My question here is solely about the phrasing for my sign.
I do protest in DC. Often. I was at one last weekend. I am unable to go into the city this weekend. I have about 2 free hours while my kids will be in a class, so I'm trying to use that time to participate where I can.
I don't need a lecture. I know what I'm doing and when and where I'm able to participate. I am solely looking for advice on whether this one sign might lead to problems or not.
I think this is a factor of your media echo chamber. I've personally attended protests nearly every week since January. I'm going to one tomorrow. They are all over my news feeds.
Ranked choice is fine, but it's never going to end the two party system on its own. We can already see in some states (Alaska and Maine) and in some smaller municipalities in the US, and in countries outside the US, which have switched to RCV after having a 2-parety system that it doesn't end the 2-party system. At best, it makes campaigning a little less negative.
People tend to simplify the concept of 3rd parties when thinking about RCV. They get it in their head that everyone who dislikes the 2 major parties would all vote for the same 3rd party as a first choice under RCV. In practice, that's not how it works. Most people still vote for one of the major parties as their top choice. Among those who don't, they are extremely divided in which 3rd party they pick. People who traditionally vote Republican but don't really like them may be willing to vote Libertarian, but their never going to vote Green. Likewise, someone who doesn't really like the Democrats but typically votes for them might prefer the Green Party or DSA or something, but they're not voting Libertarian or Freedom Party.
When RCV is implemented in a 2-party system, what almost always happens is that the first choice 3rd party vote gets split among a number of different 3rd parties, giving none of them enough votes to win. When those get dropped in the first round of instant run-offs and those votes switch to the 2nd choice, one of the 2 major parties almost always wins.
If you want to get rid of the 2-party system, you need to get rid of single-member congressional districts. Switch to multi-member districts with proportional representation. Say a state gets 5 Representatives to the House. Each party (including 3rd party) puts forth up to 5 candidates all running in the same race. Everyone votes for either their preferred candidate or preferred party (you can even implement RCV here to rank candidates if you want). Then seats are allocated to each party based on which proportion of the vote they get. If the Green party gets 20% of the vote, they get 1 seat. If Republicans get 40%, they get 2 seats, etc, etc. The specific candidate(s) who wins from each party would be whoever got the most votes within that party.
This almost eliminates strategic voting. You don't have to worry that your party is small with nowhere close to a majority support because you don't need a majority to win a seat. Nearly everyone gets the representation they want.
And this is why reading the whole comment is important, because the Democratic Party isn't my institution, which is made very clear in my comments. And I also made it very clear that voting is an extremely minor part of my participation in politics, almost none of which involves the Democratic Party (or any party).
I'm gonna assume based on your inability to read more than 7 words at a time that you don't engage in politics at all beyond shitposting. So fuck right off pretending like you have moral superiority when you do literally NOTHING to better the lives of people around you.
Or, instead of pretending like you know something you have no clue about, you could spend the 15 seconds it takes to read. It's really not that difficult or time consuming. And if reading is that much a problem for you, then maybe you shouldn't be pretending like you have an informed opinion on anything.
Like I said, by your own admission you aren't reading the comments, so you can't possibly know my position. Reading the first line isn't enough. That's why I wrote more.
I really think you're underestimating the scale of every single person who's critical of Trump. The Holocaust killed like 6 million people/year. We're talking about an order of magnitude more people than that.
This is an honest question.