Please let me know if this is supposed to be in a different comm
I once had someone unironically tell me that this would be a good idea
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
130 points (100.0% liked)
badposting
417 readers
345 users here now
badposting is a comm where you post badly
This is not a [email protected] alternative. This is not a [email protected] alternative. This is a place for you to post your bad posts.
Ever had a really shitty bit idea? Joke you want to take way past the point of where it was funny? Want to feel like a stand-up comedy guy who's been bombing a set for the past 30 minutes straight and at this point is just saying shit to see if people react to it? Really bad pun? A homemade cringe concoction? A cognitohazard that you have birthed into this world and have an urge to spread like chain mail?
Rules:
- Do not post good posts.
- Unauthorized goodposting is to be punished in the manner of commenting the phrase "GOOD post" followed by an emoji that has not yet been used in the thread
- Use an emoticon/kaomoji/rule-three-abiding ASCII art if the rations run out
- This is not a comm where you direct people to other people's bad posts. This is a comm where you post badly.
- This rule intentionally left blank.
- If you're struck for rule 3, skill issue, not allowed to complain about it.
Code of Conduct applies just as much here as it does everywhere else. Technically, CoC violations are bad posts. On the other hand: L + ratio + get ~~better~~ worse material bozo
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Unironically why would it be a bad idea though?
it would be impossible to get anything done because it necessitates endless campaigning; with no minimum term, all of your focus and all of your supporters' focus would have to be directed at keeping you in power
the moment you stop focusing on staying in to do something else, one of your opponents gets in, and then you can't do anything
Total instability. Constantly changing governments, rules, laws, regulations, and so on.
Tabulate votes every 30 seconds so that the presidency can rapidly oscillate
If I can't trade in presidential futures markets, then it's not real democracy 
the line god demands it! also, have every single citizen enrolled in it automatically, so anyone can vote for anyone at any time
Add online voting and provide the option to integrate it into ~~your favorite social media platform~~ ~~Twitter~~ X to verify your account, ~~if you choose~~
have a duplicate copy of every government bulding so no one has to move offices
I think that would be pretty funny actually
I'd watch a political comedy movie with that premise
spamming the president like the intelligence in 2fort 
if you don't have a set time to do the voting then most people will never bother to change their vote
The votes can have an expiration date after they're cast so you have to periodically refresh them.
This still wouldn't cause people to come and do it without an actively push to do it. By-elections get like 10%-30% turnout because they're not part of largescale media about an election day occurring and a major push to drive people to go and vote.
Put it in an app without a specifically scheduled day and the participation would plummet.
Me: "Elections never end (derogatory)!"
Libs: "Elections never end (good)!"
- This is just a never-ending recall
- More likely you'd just have the same president for several decades, not several presidents in one month
More likely you'd just have the same president for several decades, not several presidents in one month
I guess it depends how likely it is you think the few people that do actually change their votes from election to election and "how to change my vote" searchers, presuming that story is real would want that.
No restrictions on who people would vote for might be an interesting factor the US hasn't seen before. You wouldn't need political parties, or even to want to be president, to get elected. Maybe a president that appealed to lots of the electorate and kept doing popular enough things could stay for a long time?
I support this actually. They would be constantly accountable. You could marry this with approval voting (vote for as many as you like)
ANALYZING POST…
This post more appropriately belongs in …
COGITATING
BAD POSTING
HK is that you?
Didn't they kinda do this in the Paris Commune?
If this were real, I'd dedicate my life to organizing a voting bloc large enough that constantly flip flops so that the executive is in a perpetual state of transition between parties
Just give me Cuban style elections without parties or campaign circus.
id want to see that
Didn't the UK try something like this over the last decade? How'd that work out? Did they get a good one at any point?
In the UK, the prime minister is selected by the ruling party by internal processes of that party, which may involve voting but usually is triggered by various power plays within that party. It doesnt normally happen because switching your leadership multiple times in a single year is a bad look.
For wider democracy, the ruling party can choose to trigger an election early. This is favours the incumbent because it means the ruling party can choose when circumstances are favourable (e.g. financial stability, popular war declared)
It's crazy how uninterested I am in British electoralism. This is the most succinct explanation of it I've seen and my eyes still just sorta brushed past it and I caught myself going to a new tab mid paragraph lmao
No offense to you or anything, just noticing my bias
I guess it matters in the context of discussing electoral options, but it's only tangentially related to OP
no what you said made sense and is good information, especially in this context. i'm just noting something