this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
1021 points (97.0% liked)

Political Memes

7016 readers
3662 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Stormy1701@lemmy.zip 14 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (3 children)

This and a similar result in last years UK election is why we need to go the Australian route and make voting compulsory.

The UK government won a landslide with just 15% of the electorate actually voting for a Labour MP. But because we have a broken system they have a huge majority.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 10 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Australian voting isn't just mandatory. It's a two-party preferential system. If you vote for a minor party or independent, your vote ultimately goes toward one of the two largest parties. No vote is a throwaway.

[–] Stormy1701@lemmy.zip -4 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Two party systems are as dangerous as voting Labour. Fortunately thanks to Labours disastrous term so far we now have three viable parties theoretically capable of winning the next election. Which is coming sooner than people realise. Probably 2026, possibly this year.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 hours ago

Two party preferential is not the same as two party.

A lot of elected reps needed preferences from other candidates in order to make 50% of the vote. Those reps know where their bread us buttered.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

You are talking shit.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

While I agree in principle I don't think that would necessarily change the results in this case as labour was the best mainstream option in that case. The conservatives had messed up badly and lost public confidence, bleeding votes to both Labour and Reform.

[–] galanthus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I believe that people that do not want to vote or do not feel particularly strongly about politics should be free to stay home. They might not know much about politics. Wouldn't you rather have people vote who are actually invested into politics and come to vote because they actually want to? Also, I do not think it is ok to force people to participate in democracy in suvh a manner.

Just because you reckon your party would have won if you forced people to vote, does not mean it should be done.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It's true that mandatory voting nets a lot of low information voters. It also encourages a lot of people to check the major party's policies who otherwise wouldn't bother.

I'm not aware of low information voters swaying the vote one way or another.

By making voting mandatory, it becomes mandatory for everyone to have an opportunity to vote.

[–] galanthus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

In what country do people not have the opportunity to vote? Even if that is the case, why not just make the voting accessible without forcing people to vote?

I just don't see the point.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You don't see the point in telling citizens to take an interest?

Ok mate.

[–] galanthus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

It seems to me that there is a difference between telling someone to take and interest and forcing them to vote even though they do not care to do that on their own.