What I’m saying is, how did those studies reach the conclusion that said third parties were actually a factor in those changes, and didn’t just happen at the same time?
Because again, considering the statistics for recent years’ elections, third parties haven’t been a threat to the major two for over 50 years. I’m interested in why would they care about the relatively small voter base of those parties when they wouldn’t have changed any recent American election.
I’ll admit I’m not that well-informed on those elections, but would’ve they really been capable of being more than a spoiler candidate, had they not been “listened to”?
Looking at the data, every election in the past 200 years has been won with more than 50% of the electoral college. Latest one where a state has been won by a third party is ‘68. If those phenomena have been studied I’m interested, because it really doesn’t seem like they did anything looking at the results at a surface level.
That’s not feasible in a FPTP system. Best you can do is keep voting for the least bad between the two “real” candidates and shift the Overton window overtime.
Or have a violent revolution, but that’s a bit more difficult to coordinate.
Would she? I’m not that informed on her politics but I think Bernie supported her, and Bernie is definitely a progressive even by rest-of-the-world standards.
I don’t know how viable would that be on a large scale, but they could just ban all China-based companies from operating outside like the US did with Tiktok.
I think that would deal a decent blow on their economy, but I’m far from an expert in those fields so someone who knows better will probably come and debunk me.
Is there even a fund for Lemmy and Mastodon in general? I thought people donated to the single instances.
Nice! Hope this time the message reaches more people, last year I saw a lot of commenters that would’ve participated but didn’t know about it.
Oh, I trust them to do everything I wouldn’t like them to do.
For example, so far they’ve been following through with removing LGBTQ rights and lowering taxes for the rich, just as they promised.
Here in Italy, the only parties that seem to be favorable to nuclear are right-wing.
And of course, they got elected and didn’t actually do anything towards it.
For me it’s nostalgia and being a sucker for statistics, mostly.
Is it this one? I’m far from an expert but it seems like they used a different part of DNA from each woman, I doubt it’s possible to go beyond 3 parents with the same method.
Oh, that makes sense.
I think “open source money” is a great idea and I’m sure many here do too, but as others pointed out in the replies, cryptocurrency has a lot of issues at the moment for that to be viable.
Also, a lot of the hate probably comes from all the people shilling for it and the whole “get rich with this!!!” narrative around it.
The minute a billionaire bought the company they previously used, because in open source software, they finally see that no billionaire can buy it and control it like they can a closed source system.
I’m genuinely struggling to understand what this sentence means. Is it badly worded or am I just brainfarting?
Still waiting for the Swastika/Manji to be de-nazified. Probably not gonna see it in my lifetime, unfortunately.
Five guys and five gals will be arguing they have a right to share DNA amongst each other and make a single kid
…Is that even possible? I thought humans could only have exactly two parents biologically? If I didn’t misunderstand, I’m legit curious about this.
Yes, I figured but… isn’t that a bit too obvious? Surely there had to be a less blatant way of laundering money than… a treetop walk with no trees?
I think that qualifies as propaganda too: its intention is to improve the public opinion of the Cohesion policy by clearing misconceptions.
(About the “project” in the video… what the hell? I had to Google it because I wasn’t convinced it was a real thing. Just why?)
Can it? I searched a bit and all the definitions I’ve found seem to be about swaying public opinion, not simple objective announcements.
It does have a negative connotation even though it can be used for good, but I still don’t think purely objective messages like “a tsunami is coming, get to high ground” should count as propaganda.
From Wikipedia:
Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.
Propaganda isn’t always fake news, it can also be true stuff presented in a biased way.
Similarly, fake news isn’t always propaganda. Some is just stuff spread by trolls to make fun of people.
You said “if anecdote isn’t enough, they’re both well-studied”, so I thought some research actually existed about it.
I’m not saying third party campaigns are useless or always spoilers, I just don’t think they can actually force a change since it seems they can successfully be ignored with no repercussions. Sure, major parties can pick up bits from their programs if they want to, but they’re definitely not in a situation where they have to or else they’ll risk the election.
Even now for example, I think every non-major candidate except Kennedy is against funding Israel. But despite that, and despite (I think?) the majority of Americans being against it as well, both Biden and Trump are running with it. Because they know it’s not an issue that actually “matters” to the campaign, since there’s no viable alternative that doesn’t support it.