• GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    No, it’s simply that I understand that voting is a method of selecting leaders from the pool of candidates, based on the limitations of the system used. If there are flaws with that system, and FPTP is very flawed, the election is not the place to change it. Working to change the voting method, removing the electoral college, all of those need to happen before the election. Once the election is held, you’re bound by the system used. Presuming you have elections that aren’t rigged or ignored, anyways.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      If there are flaws with that system, and FPTP is very flawed, the election is not the place to change it.

      Then what is the place to change it?

      Presuming you have elections that aren’t rigged or ignored, anyways.

      And what if they are?

      • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        You change the laws on how the vote is done. This is a legislative or constitutional process, depending on the jurisdiction (state, county, country, etc.)

        And if the elections are corrupt, then the corruption needs to be dealt with, or things will continue to devolve.

        Note that neither of those are the results of an election (assuming your constitution doesn’t have referendums that can affect this).

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          You change the laws on how the vote is done. This is a legislative or constitutional process, depending on the jurisdiction (state, county, country, etc.)

          So, you’re saying you change the laws through elected officials, through elections. And yet, somehow, elections are “not the place” for election reform. Make it make sense.