• spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      9 months ago

      no, actually, and there’s a reason:

      in another thread here there were some non-us folk lecturing US democrats that voting “uncommitted” in the primary (where incumbents always sweep) as a message to Biden in protest of the genocide in Gaza is “fascist.”

      i want everyone, even randos from Australia, to know what the process is if such lecturing is gonna happen so that discourse stops stooping to uninformed accusations (it happened multiple times lol)

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      9 months ago

      As an American I’d also like to be excused. This is an outdated infographic that doesn’t include the part where the loser claims to win, and then tries to kill members of the government and take back the presidency.

    • Toes♀
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 months ago

      Only if you can tell the class how your country’s election process works

      • dont_lemmee_down@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s quite weird actually: You vote for a party and a local candidate. The local candidate get’s into parlament directly while the rest of parlament is filled proportionally to the general cast vote if they manage to get over 5% of the votes (this does not apply to direct winning candidates or recognized minority representing parties). With parliament resizing to accomodate for at least your direct candidates to represent your percentage. Which always made me wonder, if everyone votes for just Party A’s direct candidates, but they get 0% of the general vote, would all other parties then have to get infinite extra positions? That would result in an infinitely big parliament, which basically means every citizen is now in parliament, and kinda get’s around the fight over universal basic income, right?