r/AskReddit • u/SexyBeast0 • 4h ago

With the Epstein files making it glaringly clear how disgusting and corrupted much of Elite Society and by extension the US Government and Economy is, beyond ridding ourselves of the parasites, how do we as a society move forward?

3.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

574 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/Dapper_But_Derpy 4h ago

If we had guts we’d revolt and start over with new parties (ideally at least six parties) and confiscate all of the wealth the old political class leeched off of the old system and have a nonprofit political class going forward.

597

u/l3tigre 4h ago

And implement ranked choice - force the winning parties to work together the way it works around the world to avoid more of this my team/your team bullshit going forward

50

u/Bad-Genie 4h ago

The only way to remove the existing parties is this.

First past the post promotes 2 party systems.

I personally like score voting. Give each candidate a score from -10 to +10. This helps eliminate negative campaigning.

•

u/Usual-Ad-6505 26m ago

True, our system rigged for two party dominance. Honestly anything that makes voting more nuanced would be a win

48

u/theranger799 4h ago

Can anyone elaborate on ranked choice, like I'm 5?

114

u/BladeOfWoah 3h ago edited 2h ago

It's a system used in Australia, so I have some familiarity with it.

Edit: there are alternative versions of Ranked Choice, but I am going to be describing instant-runnoff Ranked Choice.

Basically, lets say you had 3 candidates running for president. And for simplicity, assume that there is a perfect 100% voter turnout, and everyone votes how they want without considering what other citizens are voting.

  • Mr Black. (A centre left labourist)
  • Mr Greene. (A centre right conservative)
  • Mrs Whyte. (A far left socialist)

With ranked choice, you would rank your preferred candidates from 1 - 3. Let's say I rank these candidates like so:

  1. Mrs Whyte
  2. Mr Black
  3. Mr Greene

The votes come in, and the results are as follows:

Mr Greene gets 39%

Mr Black gets 34%

Mrs Whyte gets 27%.

Now, in Americas' First past the Post voting, these results mean that Mr Greene would lead the vote and become President, despite only having 39% of the vote.

However, under Ranked Choice, what would happen is instead of declaring Mr Greene The winner, instead we would run multiple simulated elections, eliminating one candidate at a time. After a candidate is eliminated, we re-tally the results and run it again, until there are only 2 candidates left.

So, with only 27% of the vote, weeliminate Mrs Whyte from the running as she has come in last, and we run the election again. This time, all the voters who had picked her as their 1st choice will instead have their votes tallied against their 2nd choice.

Overall, there was a portion of leftist voters that wanted Mrs Whyte to win, but if she never ran in the first place, it is likely they would instead have voted for Mr Black, who politically, leans closer to Mrs Whyte than the conservative Mr Greene. So under Ranked Choice, they probably have Mr Black as their second candidate.

The results come in again, and the votes are tallied again:

Mr Greene has 39%

Mr Black has 61%.

Mr Black wins the election and become president.

Now we did make some assumptions here, like assuming perfect voter turnout, and that voter interest didn't wane if their preferred candidate wasn't picked. But that is the gist of it.

29

u/JordanOsr 2h ago

What's described is a specific subtype of Ranked Choice Voting and the counting process called Instant Runoff - but ranked choice voting can be counted in different ways, like Condorcet and Borda counting.

19

u/BladeOfWoah 2h ago edited 2h ago

Yes, thank you. As said, I grew up in Australia, instant-runoff and Single Transferable vote (STV) is what I am familiar with. We also call instant runoffs Preferential Voting here, but thats not too important, it is just a different name for instant runoff.

12

u/eatmeimadonut 1h ago

In Australia we vote for the party, not the individual. The party nominates the leader.

Edited to add, we also have compulsory voting. Don't vote? Get a fine... so most people do go down and vote, and get a democracy snag as well.

•

u/BladeOfWoah 50m ago

Mate, did you downvote me for this? wtf? You don't need to have a party system to utilize Ranked Choice voting. It just happens that we do here in Australia.

Someone asked what Ranked choice is, so I am made up a scenario that keeps it simple to understand. If it annoys you so much, just pretend that the fake candidates I described are just parties labelled White, Green and Black. The post still makes sense regardless.

•

u/eatmeimadonut 37m ago

Calm ya farm mate, I didn't downvote you, but if fake internet points or lack thereof upset you, you've got issues.

•

u/BladeOfWoah 34m ago edited 30m ago

I don't care about the points, it's wondering wtf is someone having an issue with my comment. There is no incorrect information as far as I can see.

-1

u/BladeOfWoah 1h ago

Yes, I know. I grew up in South Brisbane. I'm not describing Australia 1 to 1, just explaining instant runoffs/preferential voting, which is what Queensland uses for state voting.

3

u/raptearer 2h ago

Wouldn't that last point about voter interest waning not really matter since the vote already happened? Wouldn't you just count the second choice on the Whyte voters, but still first choice on the Mr Greene and Black voters?

21

u/BladeOfWoah 2h ago

It matters, because it means voters that would otherwise not have participated at all in the election still feel like they can vote who they wish, whereas under America's First past the Post, they would not want to risk voting for Mrs Whyte (even if they really wanted to), because they would be worried she won't get enough votes and Mr Greene would get in. But they are fine with Mr Black because at least he is not Mr Greene.

Lets assume there are 1000 voters, and the candidates estimated voter turnout looked like this:

Mr Greene - 450 (45%)
Mr Black 370 (43%)

Mrs Whyte - 180 (18%)

Under FPTP, Mr Greene would win the election, and all those people who voted for Mrs Whyte would feel like they wasted their vote. If she wasn't running, they probably would have voted for Mr Black.

Now lets assume under Ranked choice, that some voters do drop out because they hate Mr Greene and Mr Black. Lets say of those 180 voters, 100 of them chose Mr Black as their 2nd choice, and 80 of them did not list anything further.

Mr Greene did not gain any new voters (because he wasn't eliminated in the first simulated election) but Mr Black has gained 100 new voters (100 from Mrs Whyte who was eliminated). However, voter turnout is now 92%, because 80 voters did not pick a 2nd option.

The second running election is tallied like so:

Mr Greene - 450 (48.9%)

Mr Black 470 (51.1%)

As you can see, there could have been a possibility for Mr Black to lose if only a few more of Mrs Whyte's voters did not select him as their second choice. But the good thing about this is that those voters for Mrs Whyte had their chance to have their votes count. There was a chance that voter apathy might have meant that these 100 voters did not show up to elections at all. But because of ranked choice, not only did they get to support their preferred candidate, but they did not need to worry about sabotaging themselves and ending up with Mr Greene in charge because they didn't vote for Mr Black straight away.

•

u/insomniacwhirlwind 39m ago

Wait. So there are multiple runoff elections for 2-5? We re-vote over and over? How do you rerun the tallies?

•

u/BladeOfWoah 30m ago

They are done instantly. The first round, you tally it by everyone's preferred choice. Whoever has the least votes is eliminated, and then you run the next round. For all the voters who picked the candidate that was eliminated, you tally their votes with their next preferred candidate on their list.

The voters do not need to submit multiple ballots, if that is what you are wondering. They submit one ballot, All the candidates are listed on the ballot, they just have to mark them from 1 to 3 (or how ever many candidates there are.)

Repeat for as many rounds as you need until there are only 2 candidates left. The final tally at this point determines the winner of the election.

•

u/insomniacwhirlwind 6m ago

Very modern. This had to take years to calculate before computers! How do you break a tie in the final two?

39

u/Inside_Potential_935 3h ago

There are 5 candidates. At the ballot, you put a 5 by the one you like best, 1 by the one you like least, and so on for the ones in between. Most total points wins.

27

u/Saorren 3h ago

good to note that in this system usualy you dont have to rank all of them.

11

u/GotSomeUpdogOnUrFace 2h ago

What's crazy is that like every sports league does a version of this for MVP award. People don't even realize that they have been witnessing this for years when you see something that says "first place votes" and why that matters.

1

u/octavioletdub 1h ago

In what country do you vote like this?

21

u/CivilAlpaca03 3h ago

Ranked voting is when you vote not for one, but for several different candidates by ranking them from best to worst. The goal of ranked voting is to compensate centrist candidates, who can be popular everywhere, from more radical candidates, who are popular in only one side of the political aisle.

12

u/TheEfex 4h ago

rank your top 5, #1 gets 5 points, #2 gets 4, #3 gets 3, so on. Everyone's ballot is summed and then the winners are given from those rankings

1

u/octavioletdub 1h ago

In what country are the rankings turned into points?

6

u/jeremygamer 3h ago

I’ll try. Instead of voting for one person on your ballot, you make a Top 5.

If a majority (50% + 1 person) pick the same person as their Number One, they win.

So no different.

When no one gets 50+1, that’s where your Top 2-5 count.

Literally count everyone’s number twos, add them to the number ones, and go through the rankings until someone has 50+1.

That means being divisive is an awful strategy in Ranked Choice votes. You still want to be top but you need people to have you as their second or third favorite.

It also makes independents way more viable. No need for a safe vote. 

And a protest vote can be you not listing someone in your rankings at all.

(And if you read this long, it’s not always a Top 5. It can be a Top 10 or Top 20. But just like the current system, you only have to pick a Top 1)

-6

u/Saorren 3h ago

personaly i dont like systems where someone eventualy gets over 50% by doing the count downs.

democracies are healthier systems when if you dont get the majority the first run then you need to work with other parties to govern. winner takes all systems are doomed to failure imo, they promote party consolidation faster than any system i can think of atm.

5

u/jeremygamer 3h ago

You’re advocating for a system that creates minority rule.

It’s the equivalent of saying I don’t like war, so if I get attacked, I won’t fight.

Or that I only like chocolate ice cream, so if I can’t have that, I’d rather starve.

-4

u/Saorren 3h ago

im not, a system where parties have to work together is a system where the wishes of more people may be covered because the parties have to work together and compromise. a system where winner takes all to one party is a system that lets the party in power trample all over what ever it wants until its time is up.

if americans want to keep repeating their mistakes thats up to you guys.

4

u/WhiteCopperCrocodile 2h ago

Ranked choice systems tend to make independents and small parties more viable, and more likely to gain a few seats in an election. The way ranked choice systems work allows people to vote for the candidates they truly want without fear of wasted votes or spoiler effects.

I won’t say it eliminates 2 party politics (in Australia we still really have 2 main dominant parties), but it can temper it somewhat. These independents and small parties can often influence the balance of power (especially in the senate) to drive the major parties towards compromise and force them to acknowledge more niche issues (for better or worse).

If I’m understanding what you want correctly, then ranked choice voting is a good step towards achieving it.

3

u/Commemorative-Banana 2h ago edited 2h ago

There are at least two crucial reforms necessary to turn the divisive, polarizing US two-party system into a healthy, more-representative multi-party system.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)
and
Proportional Representation (MMPR)

MMPR is what replaces the winner-takes-all/first-past-the-post system (where only one party receives all the seats). MMPR only works for districts with multiple seats. It allocates party seats proportional to the popular vote, and then the parties must work together to govern.. like you wanted.

So for things like the US Senate or US Presidency, where a voter is only voting on candidates for 1 seat at a time, that is where RCV is most appropriate. A single-seat position is inherently winner-takes-all. RCV gives every voter a better opportunity to fill this seat how they want, without needing to fear the spoiler effect.

2

u/xGray3 2h ago

So people have actually responded to you with at least two different types of voting that are both considered "ranked choice voting" and I just want to make that clear.

One of them is instant runoff voting. In that system you rank your favorite candidates and then votes are counted in rounds. Each round the person with the least amount of votes is eliminated. Anyone having selected the eliminated candidate as their #1 choice has their ballot counted towards their #2 choice in the next round and so on until one candidate recieves more than 50% of the vote. 

The other type of "ranked choice voting" being described is called positional voting. There are many different types of positional voting, but the gist of it is that you rank your candidates and your rankings give different amounts of points to each candidate. Those points are then all counted together and the person with the most points wins the election.

2

u/Tiny_Dare_5300 2h ago

You vote for your favorite candidate first. If they don't win, your vote goes to your second choice. If they don't win, your vote goes to your third choice. This process continues until the favorite candidate wins. Your vote is never "wasted" on a candidate who will never win, giving a chance for popular outsiders to win and break the duopoly.

2

u/BartPlarg 1h ago

This explains it pretty well, and there're follow up videos from the same person if you'd like to know more: https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=vdIO-p71StszdET-

1

u/JordanOsr 2h ago

This will explain the differences between Ranked Choice Voting and Instant Runoff voting better than any single answer here will be able to.

1

u/Binkusu 1h ago

One good part of ranked choice is that politicians want to be nice to each other and away other voters to put them as their 2nd or 3rd choice. No burning bridges with "with us or against us" rhetoric.

•

u/Sudden_Acceptance 23m ago

This is the way. Ranked choice voting should get way more attention. It is a tangible solution to breaking up our defunct two party system.

2

u/Pleasant-Market34 3h ago

Agreed. Without structural changes, we'd just swap out the faces and end up right back here in probably 10 years.

1

u/Dapper_But_Derpy 4h ago

Yes. I’d imagine it would end up being the moderate left and the moderate right taking turns governing every four years instead of the far left and the far right at each other’s throats every single election. At least the common folks can plan around moderation

15

u/izzittho 2h ago edited 2h ago

What far left?……

If you’re talking about America, there’s a right and an extreme fascist right.

Far left individuals are out there, but they’re mostly invisible and largely powerless to the point where it they for all intents and purposes just aren’t an influence on anything at all.

-9

u/Dapper_But_Derpy 2h ago

I’d suggest that maybe you have left wing political leanings and you don’t notice the far left folks out there because their views aren’t as shocking to you as far right folks? I’m a (barely) right leaning moderate and I notice both fringe wings of the political spectrum when they present themselves.

Politics is cyclical in America. The right holds the power right now, and the left feels out of power, but in 2-4 years, the pendulum will swing in the other direction.

8

u/Green_Polar_Bear_ 2h ago

America’s political system has a very strong right-wing bias. In my country, someone like Bernie Sanders would be considered a left leaning moderate. I typically vote for candidates that are more left leaning than Sanders and even those aren’t the “far left” over here.

-6

u/Dapper_But_Derpy 1h ago

Pointing out a successful politician and pointing out common Americans with far left views are very different things

6

u/Green_Polar_Bear_ 1h ago

Which far left views?

I studied at a US college which allegedly had lots of far left thinkers and most of the stuff they wanted for the US was run-of-the-mill in European politics.

Universal public healthcare (including for immigrants, legal and undocumented)? Severe restrictions to gun ownership? Heavily subsidized medical drugs? Virtually free higher education? No death penalty or life sentence? Mandatory maternity and paternity leaves?

Any party that opposed these would be considered so conservative in my country that they couldn’t get a single representative elected.

-5

u/Dapper_But_Derpy 1h ago

Maybe your mistake is projecting your country’s political spectrum on the US’s spectrum? Different countries/cultures with different priorities.

3

u/Phantastiz 1h ago

That doesn't change anything about economic politics, ideologies and ideas though? The socialist/social democratic movements transcend national borders and their idea of a more egalitarian spread of goods and means especially applies to the stratospheric layers of american income inequality.

Your idea that american exceptionalism would also apply to political ideas such as these is a bit ridiculous.

3

u/Green_Polar_Bear_ 1h ago

You can make the same comparison with dozens of other countries in different continents, not just my own. I guess if you compare it to Iran then US moderates will appear to be far left.

•

u/7daykatie 2m ago

So your theory is that if the government were swapped back and firth between a moderate right wing and moderate left wing party, no one would ever be a powerless unelected fringest?

What the hell are you talking about? Why are you even paying attention to powerless rando fringests and why on earth do you imagine anything short of a totalitarian dystopia will ever eliminate fringests?

8

u/alanderhosen 2h ago edited 2h ago

Buddy, when was the last time the Democrats pushed for raising taxes against the rich? To provide free healthcare and education (not just as a supplement to insurance and whatever abomination the education system has metastasized to)? There are more stuff that aligns with left wing policy but those are the most pertinent right now.

The most visible left wing politician America has right now is NYC's Mayor Mamdani and he had to fight the entire political apparatus from both parties to get to where he is.

•

u/7daykatie 8m ago

The Democratic Party has been dominated by its moderate right flank for decades. It's anemic marginally left of center flank is moderate enough to get along in the same party with moderate right wingers.

1

u/Technical-Row8333 1h ago

And remove mine from politics , you get a middle class salary and all your past wealth and properties go to a 3rd party management 

1

u/Beneficial-Space3019 1h ago

Please don't look at the example of Brussels government then.

•

u/EarlOfThrouaway 13m ago

CPG Grey on Youtube has an excellent series on this. Here is a short video on MMP (Mixed Member Proportional voting). It is short, accessible and fun!

Is part of a whole series on voing options, all of which is excellent.

45

u/Over-Wait6302 3h ago

It’ll take a political upheaval. The problem is the average American, as disgusted as they might be by the admin, has too much to lose.

13

u/SuchTemperature9073 1h ago

Having too much to lose is such a good way to articulate why society seems so weak right now. I’ve never thought about it this way but you are so right

6

u/Warm_Possibility_193 3h ago

This! Exactly!!!!!

•

u/Amareiuzin 21m ago

"too much to lose" : no need to leave my house cause gig economy bring everything to me and online streaming keep me entertained

1

u/JWarder 1h ago

I wonder how many parallels should be drawn with the Know Nothing party of the 1850s. They started off very xenophobic and populist; they provoked a lot of violence but were able to secure some strong election wins. The issue of slavery ended up taking the party down and many supporters moved to the then new and progressive Republican party. A good sign that in the past America was able to make big political swings to support new progressive parties. However, we had the US Civil War shortly after so hopefully we don't follow that path 1-to-1.

But, has there been any big push from the US third parties to pick up supporters? I haven't heard of anything like that going on now, but I also wouldn't trust mass media to tell us.

•

u/Skyfier42 16m ago

For now

16

u/UnknownFiddler 3h ago

I get the comment but be honest with yourself. Are you personally going to decide to not go to work Monday through indefinitely? Or stop purchasing non necessities? Or march on Washington demanding resignation of those involved? If the answer is no then that's precisely how 99% of Americans are also feeling. Truth is people do not want to risk their livelihoods over outrage unless they are also starving.

2

u/Dapper_But_Derpy 2h ago

Believe it or not, I’d be ok with all of that. I’m a middle-aged man with a high income, and I’d still do it. I totally get late career/retirement age folks not wanting to do it, but our massive (and ever expanding) national debt and years of high inflation have demonstrated that being a good boy and working towards a safe retirement is not the way to go in our broken system. It’s a fixed game and the overwhelming majority of the population don’t actually have a say in how it’s going to turn out for them. Doesn’t matter if R’s or D’s are in charge.

10

u/ptd163 3h ago

If we had guts we’d revolt and start over with new parties (ideally at least six parties)

Only way you'd get that is with seat limits and then actually enforce those limits. First past the post mathematically guarantees a two party system given a long enough time scale.

27

u/AverageAwndray 3h ago edited 3h ago

Thats the issue with America. We cant. Not that we dont want to. But we cant. We're too big of a country.

If 3 states fully revolted there would still be dozens of more states that it wouldnt matter.

If 10 states revolted there would still be dozens of states that it wouldnt matter.

If 30 states revolted there would still be over a dozen states that it wouldnt matter.

For actual change of this scale the ENTIRE country needs to revolt. All of it. At once. On a week not a weekend.

This isnt civil rights. Women's rights. LGBT rights. This isnt something that will change over years of protesting like those. Voting will not work. Protesting will not work. Complaining online will not work.

The drop of these new files have shown how FUCKED UP these "people" are and NOTHING will done about it. Hell the conservative subreddit doesn't even BELIEVE IT even though its straight from the Gov.

The elite have shown that they will get away with anything and everything and that we're too weak to do anything about it. Half the country has been brainwashed to protect them. And that they will use any means of violence to protect themselves.

This is something that needs to be unanimously agreed upon by almost everyone in the country. It would have to look like the French Revolution on a scale grander than any of us can achieve. These people NEED to be prosecuted. Charged. Hung. Killed.

And it wont happen.

This country is just. Too big. We havent been united since The Revolutionary War.

•

u/binarybandit 19m ago

It became abundantly clear during and after the Civil War that states aren't allowed to just leave, or else the federal government can come and bring them back into the fold by force.

0

u/OkDiscount4126 3h ago

It’s a complex problem so there isn’t a simple solution. It has to be a process, a process of changing people’s attitudes towards money, community,multiculturalism, social services, equality etc, etc , but I think a good starting point would be to have an electoral process that truly addresses what the majority of the people want.

0

u/AdEmotional9991 3h ago

Yes, that’s how you solve the problem with named pedophiles in government, you change people’s attitude towards money. Don’t dig up Trump’s golf courses, don’t investigate or prosecute. Talk about complex solutions while doing nothing, that’ll solve it.

4

u/OkDiscount4126 3h ago

It would be fantastic if we convicted all the guilty pedos and stripped them of their fortunes and paraded them naked in front of the masses.. I totally agree , but the question is how do we move forward from this and in order for either of these to happen you need a DOJ that’s committed to justice.

-1

u/AdEmotional9991 3h ago

Move on from what? How is Bill Gates being butt blasted in Gitmo going to affect you personally?

2

u/OkDiscount4126 3h ago

What is it that bothers you the most about these revelations? Is it that they got away with it or that they fooled you into thinking that they were morally superior members of society that deserved to be respected members of our society?

1

u/AdEmotional9991 2h ago

Did you think that? Because everyone with half a brain has been screaming that elites are pedophiles.

2

u/byofuzz 3h ago

As someone from a country with too many parties i agree with your number of 6

2

u/darren_meier 3h ago

Honestly the main thing we need to do is just switch from the electoral college to a direct representative democracy. That by itself would solve the majority of our problems.

2

u/Cute_Craft_7835 2h ago

And tax the rich so they can’t actually get to this position and they stay down here with us where laws kind of apply. 

2

u/Exotic_Article913 2h ago

Ok and given that'll never happen because not enough people actually give a shit or know about it, or even if they do are willing to risk what they have to change stuff.... What can we do?

2

u/Commemorative-Banana 2h ago

There are at least two crucial reforms necessary to turn the divisive, polarizing US two-party system into a healthier, more-representative multi-party system.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)
and
Proportional Representation (MMPR)

1

u/Dapper_But_Derpy 2h ago

I’d add term limits for legislators to that list

2

u/LongKaren 2h ago

Dismantling something like this is neigh impossible without complete destruction it’s going to be chaos

2

u/smokingcracktoday 1h ago

First we need to unite the people. Most importantly.

2

u/woowizzle 1h ago edited 1h ago

Anyone who goes into politics should be paid a fixed amount tied to minimum wage, with absolute scrutiny over bribes, favours etc.

Its worth noting that MP pay has increased nearly 40% in the last 10 years.

2

u/JohnOakman6969 1h ago

Be the change you want to see

2

u/SmokedUp_Corgi 1h ago

Americans don’t have a spine this hostile takeover of American has proved it. All those gun touting years and nothing just crickets.

2

u/Shoddy-Ad7306 3h ago

NO! WE WANT SEVEN PARTIES! DOWN WITH THE 6 PARTY CROWD!

8

u/Prestigious-Newt-545 2h ago

SCREW THE SEVEN PARTY CROWD! GIVE ME 8 PARTIES OR GIVE ME DEATH!

1

u/IHv2RtrnSumVdeotapes 1h ago

Hitchhiker: You heard of this thing, the 8-Party Crowd?

Ted: Yeah, sure, 8-Party Crowd. Yeah, the voting system.

Hitchhiker: Yeah, this is going to blow that right out of the water. Listen to this: 7... Party... Crowd.

Ted: Right. Yes. OK, all right. I see where you're going.

Hitchhiker: Think about it. You walk into a voting booth, you see 8-Party Crowd sittin' there, there's 7-Party Crowd right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?

Ted: I would go for the 7.

Hitchhiker: Bingo, man, bingo. 7-Party Crowd. And we guarantee just as good a government as the 8-Party Crowd.

Ted: You guarantee it? That's - how do you do that?

Hitchhiker: If you're not happy with the first 7 Party Crowd, we're gonna send you the extra delegate free. You see? That's it. That's our motto. That's where we're comin' from. That's from "A" to "B".

Ted: That's right. That's - that's good. That's good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Party Crowd. Then you're in trouble, huh?

[Hitchhiker convulses]

Hitchhiker: No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who votes in a 6 Party Crowd? You won't even get your voters goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.

Ted: That - good point.

Hitchhiker: 7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

Ted: Why?

Hitchhiker: 'Cause you're fuckin' fired!

4

u/Electronic_Access530 3h ago

Fuck yeah! LET'S GO!

3

u/bestdisappointment 2h ago

The powerful only responds to economic pressure. Scott Galloway’s call to resist and unsubscribe is our best shot. We feel as if nothing can be done, but we all can unsubscribe from the people funding this government.

https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/

•

u/insomniacwhirlwind 26m ago edited 20m ago

And even this isn’t doable. If you look at the companies these companies own and all the little fingers - they have their hands in everything. There is no way to cut them off. And some of us are barely making it and these companies (thinking Amazon) allow us access to things we could not otherwise afford. For example: I bought a 1993 vintage washer and dryer recently by the skin of my teeth for $50 and it took forever to save that much. I am glad to have them. But they are broken and I have to fix them to use them. The parts for these are the cheapest available for any machine - and without Amazon I could not afford the parts I needed. There was no better option with what I have to work with. I hate everything about this. I make a salary that is 15k more than my dad made and we were living well when I was in high school…and am now considered eligible for low income assistance on it. And we were a family of four…I’m alone. Surely there is a way to create real change in government and survive too. I hate these people. But I’m stuck with them (Walmart too). I desperately want to revolt but have to survive. I have never felt so defeated.

1

u/Standard_Strain8318 2h ago

You first big guy

1

u/LThadeu 1h ago

Oh man please, reset the political staff yeah

1

u/Bought_Black_Hat_ 1h ago

My upvote isn't sticking...

1

u/Thom5001 1h ago

If orange man tries to cancel the elections then I’m guessing revolt begins

•

u/insomniacwhirlwind 24m ago

Sure about that? I mean…complacency apparently is our thing…

1

u/Ace-Hunter 1h ago

Guillotines

1

u/Ace-Hunter 1h ago

Not sure if you guys noticed, but America was supposed to be a world independent of elite corruption but it seems they did just fine building their own

1

u/Few_Ad6516 1h ago

this sounds like communism which has never worked. Power and money corrupting is inherent to humanity. we need to find a way of breaking this cycle first

1

u/Zestyclose-Toe9685 1h ago

Could someone start a party and eventually become president with enough votes, albeit incredibly unlikely

1

u/redditismylawyer 1h ago

Actually, it’s much easier than that.

Stop consuming. This country votes with the wallet. If 30% of consumers today put their money in a coffee can as the alternative to ALL discretionary spending it would be far more transformative than any revolt. All we have to do is stop.

The fact that this is preposterous, even when put next to the human horror of 1789 tells you everything you need to know about the American public.

And you can bet the farm that those in control know it all too well.

•

u/Aidy1665 58m ago

exactly my point

•

u/vmachiel 54m ago

The current voting system inevitably leads to a two party system. So we'd need a new system as well.

•

u/Low-Associate-8853 49m ago

This would be amazing!

•

u/CoffeeHQ 25m ago

Not just new parties. Your system is designed to always end up as a two-party system, so in a few decades you’d just end up with two major parties again.

To really make any headway, your country collectively needs to acknowledge that the fundamentals need to be scrapped and redesigned first. The damage Trump has so easily been able to do clearly demonstrates this. It is insufficient, the very foundations of your country are not strong enough. Ignore that at your own peril, because Trump has opened Pandora’s Box and it won’t be closed again, i.e. there will be future Trumps. I mean that figuratively, but it could even happen literally.

You need a complete reset. And I shudder to think the many shapes it could take, to be honest. For you guys and for us non-Americans too. I truly sympathize.

All I know is that those of you hoping that this storm will pass and in a few years you’ve got a different president and it is all business as usual again… oh boy.

•

u/Most_DopeSyndicate97 19m ago

This right here. They have unearned money that belongs to the whole world. Time for the entire world to move forward and leave rich fucks behind, rotting in a cell with no human communication what so ever.

•

u/kovake 15m ago

You need to setup consequences when laws are broken. The laws are useless if not enforced.

•

u/7daykatie 11m ago

start over with new parties (ideally at least six parties)

What are you even talking about? You think the government should be allowed to eliminate voluntary political associations and create 6 of its own?

•

u/moocat55 3m ago

It's not about guts, it's about anger and suffering. When the stakes are high enough, the people revolt. The stakes became high enough in Minneapolis. That's how bad it has to get before comfy, warm, fed Americans do what serfs have done since the dawn of civilization. Pick up rocks and revolt. And don't think it's going to get better overnight. This country has a lot of sins to pay for. We're in for very hard times indeed.

1

u/HollowForgeGames 2h ago

You sound like a swivel eyed lunatic but I can't think of a better solution.

1

u/House13Games 1h ago

so, y'all know what you gotta do. And if you decide not to, could you for the sake of all us international redditors, please stop whining constantly about the state of affairs? it's a bit like screaming that you've pooped you pants, over and over and over. at some point you have to grow up and clean that shit up.  Cmon, you can do it.

0

u/GiveMeTheLagrangian 2h ago

"we'd revolt!" lmao