Ed: Where should we eat? I say pizza.
Ann: Pizza!
Ty: Pizza!
Liz: Pizza!
Ed: Alright, pizza it is! Oh, right, I forgot we have to figure out what the voters will eat. I guess they can have this old shoe. Now, back to pizza!
TronBronson 2 points 15 days ago
Bravo!
prole 25 points 17 days ago
The Senate was never designed to be proportionate to a state's population. The House was.
It's fine to be against the idea of the Senate, but you should at least make sure you understand why it was created in the first place. That is, to create a union of states where each one has a certain level of autonomy.
The Senate is meant to represent each state's individual interests in a national legislature.
Sometimes the interests of a local municipality don't perfectly align with the interests of a state writ large. Which is why we have two houses: one to represent each state, and one that's proportionate to population and represents the districts within a state.
The real issue, in my opinion, is the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that put a hard cap on the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435 seats.
SeriousMite 25 points 17 days ago
It was created because the founders didn’t trust democracy. Shay’s Rebellion had them nervous about too much democracy taking wealth from the ruling class.
theparadox 2 points 17 days ago
Thanks for saving me the trouble of bringing this up.
TronBronson 1 point 15 days ago
To be fair if you had stolen a bunch of land you'd also be worried someone would eventually steal it back.
grue 12 points 17 days ago
you should at least make sure you understand why it was created in the first place. That is, to create a union of states where each one has a certain level of autonomy.
The Senate is meant to represent each state's individual interests in a national legislature.
...
The real issue, in my opinion, is the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that put a hard cap on the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435 seats.
IMO the real reason the Senate is broken is the 17th Amendment (having Senators be directly elected by popular vote instead of chosen by state legislatures). That's the point when it ceased to be fit for its original purpose (representing the State as its own entity in a way materially different from the House, maximising separation of powers) and should've just been abolished entirely instead.
I agree with you that the House is broken by the Reapportionment Act because there are just too damn many constituents per legislator, but that issue is separate from what's wrong with the Senate.
prole 6 points 17 days ago
but that issue is separate from what's wrong with the Senate.
I'm not sure that it is. We have a bicameral legislature, you can't really separate them completely. Together they are "Congress".
I think the Senate would be fine as it is if we actually had a proportionate House of Reps.
And maybe the Senate shouldn't be the "upper house" as I think "The People's House" (in this scenario, actually proportionate) should be considered more important.
But I think calling for the abolishment of the Senate entirely is misguided. I like the idea of a federation of states, each with a degree of autonomy. And given the nature of the US being a nation of immigrants (and it's sheer size), I think it fits our culture very well.
Rivalarrival -3 points 17 days ago
If you want to see the US without the Senate, watch The Hunger Games. It's called "Panem".
12 numbered districts whose collective population is a minority of the total, controlled from afar by a single district comprising the majority. Whatever that distant, popular majority wants, it commands the minority districts to provide.
The solution to the inequities in Panem is a Senate with the power to veto the whims of the Capitol district.
Natanael 5 points 17 days ago
Instead you let a minority control the majority
Veto powers should be limited to that which directly impacts each state materially, not simply everything including things happening afar
ayyy 3 points 17 days ago
Lmao you do know there are many other forms of democratic government in the world that aren’t the USA right? You don’t have to resort to ham-fisted YA fantasy.
Also I need to confirm with you: you know the hunger games is fiction and not real life, right?
adjectivenoun 5 points 17 days ago
The Senate made more sense when the US was less centralized and different states were like different countries and there weren't a bunch of states populated by 100 cows for every person.
In the modern era, it's a simple tyranny of the minority. Wyoming has like 500,000 people, but those 500,000 have the exact same power in the more important chamber of Congress than do the 40,000,000 of California or the 30,000,000 of Texas.
If we take it to an extreme, imagine if there were only two states in the Union. Hawaii and the entire Continental US. Would we share equal power with Hawaii? Of course not.
If we're really married to the idea, there should be a requirement for roughly equal population by state, and let's be honest, we have that with House districts and they gerrymander it. (We should also move to proportional representation to fix that.)
Rivalarrival 3 points 17 days ago
We should also move to proportional representation to fix that.
Nailed it. Gerrymandering is impossible to fix so long as we rely on geographical districts. In a state with 20 districts, 45% voting Democrat, 45% voting Republican, 5% voting Pirate, and 5% voting Ninja, we should have a congressional delegation of 1 Ninja, 1 Pirate, 9 Democrats, and 9 Republicans. Instead, we get 12 Republicans, 8 Democrats, no ninjas, and no pirates.
NocturnalMorning 5 points 17 days ago
Nah, the senate represents the state. That's the problem, always has been.
VinegarChunks 76 points 17 days ago
We need the electoral college because without it the ignorant masses might elect an dangerously unqualified reactionary demagogue they saw on a reality TV show.
PhoenixDog 6 points 16 days ago
That sounds like the plot of Idiocracy.
That'd be insane if it actually happened. Could you imagine!?
TefikiMupu 4 points 15 days ago
Well maybe it'd happen once. but certainly not twice. Right?
heartSagan5 7 points 17 days ago
🤣
TronBronson 1 point 15 days ago
I almost missed the sarcasm lol. Woooosh
Thebeardedsinglemalt 51 points 17 days ago
Let's let the class decide what type of pizza to get.
Counting the votes, pepperoni wins.
Counting the votes at each table, then each counting the winner per table, pepperoni wins.
Arbitrarily dividing each table into "groups" of students, then adding those groups up to determine which choice won the table, then counting the tables... anchovies wins!
JasonDJ 1 point 15 days ago
My second grade teacher did the Jane Elliot experiment in our class. I was in tears because I couldn't talk to my best friend anymore.
Like, I don't think I've ever been that upset in my life. This was like 35 years ago.
A shitty thing for a teacher to do to a second grader...but damn if it didn't stick with me.
So, too, would something like this.
...same teacher, during the Great American Smokeout, called down to the office and told them we were going to do an "experiment" in the class. She lit up a cigarette in front of all of us, took a few deep drags, then put the cigarette on some plastic + foam model of the lungs, to show them getting soaked with tar.
The 90s were a wild time. Teachers smoking cigarettes and in class in front of 7yo's and performing social experiments on casual racism. And people wonder why millennials need so much more mental healthcare than previous generations. We're the last ones who sat on the rug, Indian Style.
SirEDCaLot 0 points 17 days ago
A better analogy
Counting the votes- pepperoni wins.
There's a lot of vegetarians but they don't make up an absolute majority so their needs are ignored.
Counting the votes at each table- cheese wins, because even the two huge tables want pepperoni, many of the smaller tables are mostly vegetarians who don't eat pepperoni.
This is why the electoral college is still relevant- to ensure that urban voters don't bowl over suburban or rural voters who deserve to have a say in government too.
Dividing each table into groups then adding them together- that's a scam by a pepperoni fan because they will ensure every group has 5 known pepperoni lovers and 2 others.
SirEDCaLot 5 points 17 days ago
That's the whole point of the House-Senate split- that the more populous urban areas get more representation in the House, but proportionately less in the Senate.
That said- gerrymandering has fucked that up hardcore. The solution though is to stop gerrymandering, not to give urban areas universal control over the Presidency.
If you make the Presidency a popular vote only, then candidates will campaign in every major city and won't give a fuck what rural areas want.
Burninator05 5 points 16 days ago
If you make the Presidency a popular vote only, then candidates will campaign in every major city and won't give a fuck what rural areas want.
You may not be wrong but with the current system candidates pretty much only campaign in swing states. If you're in a reliably red or blue state you likely arent getting a visit from a candidate.
infinitesunrise 3 points 17 days ago
The senate sure is. The house get reapportioned after every census to stay more or less proportional to population differences.
AeonFelis 3 points 16 days ago
Okay, but cheese does not win in this system because pepperoni lovers can tolerate it while vegetarians cannot eat pepperoni. Nor does it win because minorities are getting more representation in general. Cheese wins here purely because you've arranged the voting system to give more power to the ones you wanted to win.
Dividing each table into groups then adding them together- that’s a scam by a pepperoni fan because they will ensure every group has 5 known pepperoni lovers and 2 others.
If it's possible to ensure such majority of pepperoni lovers in every single group, then pepperoni lovers have an overall majority. They don't need scams to win. In fact - you'd need scams to prevent them from winning.
JasonDJ 2 points 15 days ago
Vegetarians need more campaign skills. Really gotta convince the pepperoni people that their meat is played out.
Like, really, what's so great about meat on a pizza? Especially pepperoni. Pepperoni is so played out. I could see like, maybe Buffalo chicken, or barbecue chicken, or sausage + peppers...but pepperoni? We gonna go to Starbucks after and get a PSL?
Not to mention, we had pepperoni last time and we all got sick, remember? We were stuck at home for like a whole year.
Anyways as a vegetarian, my vote would be for the Mediterranean pizza anyways. With the feta, spinach, kamalata olives...this place even puts on a balsamic drizzle. Way more interesting and flavorful.
That's a good pizza. Variety of flavors. Pretends to be healthy and exotic. Not available at Chuck E. Cheese.
See, this way, not only did I pitch the preferred pizza, I also introduced additional contenders on the other side of the aisle. This will hopefully serve to split the vote enough to force a run-off. It'd probably still be between Pepperoni and Mediterranean, but now, hopefully enough of the Never-Peppers will realize that Pepperoni is the basic-bitch of meats, and if they can't have buffalo then why even have meat?
Unfortunately, the vegan is like "Fuck all ya'll, all of these options are supporting animal genocide, how could I vote for any of these?" and abstains, and manages to convince another Never-Pepper stand alone choosing salads for everyone. And then the rest of us all end up with Pepperoni. Again. And everyone gets heartburn, while me and the vegan starve. And the pigs still get slaughtered, and the cows still get raped, and we end up supporting the animal genocide even more. And the following year, the salad has cyclospora.
Happens all the damn time.
SirEDCaLot 1 point 14 days ago
Cheese wins because we don't ignore small tables, as a simple majority system would do. I think small tables deserve to have a voice for their needs, even if there are fewer of them. It's not right to ignore an entire group of tables simply because fewer people sit at them.
If it’s possible to ensure such majority of pepperoni lovers in every single group, then pepperoni lovers have an overall majority. They don’t need scams to win. In fact - you’d need scams to prevent them from winning.
Not necessarily.
Let's say you have 100 people. 60 want cheese, 40 want pepperoni.
You need to split this 100 people into 6 tables, each table will vote and submit their overall request. Whichever kind of pizza most of the tables request gets ordered.
You assign seating as follows:
Table 1- 10 pepperoni, 6 cheese
Table 2- 10 pepperoni, 7 cheese
Table 3- 10 pepperoni, 6 cheese
Table 4- 10 pepperoni, 7 cheese
Table 5- 17 cheese, no pepperoni
Table 6- 17 cheese, no pepperoni
There we go. I've just 'fairly, evenly' divided 100 people into 6 tables of 16-17 people each.
And thus with my 'simple and unimportant' job of assigning table seating, I've guaranteed that pepperoni will be ordered even though a majority of the people want cheese. Tables 1-4 will vote and pepperoni will win, tables 5-6 will unanimously agree on cheese, and when we ask the tables what they want 4 out of 6 tables will vote pepperoni. And thus the minority wins because the table seating was a scam.
If the tables were assigned randomly, or if a computer grouped the tables by similar interest, age, etc, we'd get something more like a fair vote.
AeonFelis 1 point 14 days ago
Cheese wins because we don’t ignore small tables, as a simple majority system would do
Why do small tables deserve this special protection from being ignored? No other minority group is getting such protection. Minority races are ignored. Minority cultures are ignored. Minorities with special dietary needs - like vegetarians, the very minority you have used to justify inflating the voting power of the small tables - are ignored. What's so special about being seated in a smaller table that warrants silencing the majority just so that you - a minority - won't be ignored?
And yes, I understand that this is just an allegory, and in real life there can be reason to give this protection to small states, reasons that are not reflected when we think of them as tables. But please remember that the real reason in real life was to allow slavery states to utilize their slaves' voting powers without actually allowing them to vote.
Not necessarily.
[...]
Note that I said "in every single group", and I said you because you said "will ensure every group".
I should have emphasized it...
If the tables were assigned randomly, or if a computer grouped the tables by similar interest, age, etc, we’d get something more like a fair vote.
Another way to "get something more like a fair vote" is to count the votes by person and not by table. Actually, this is not just "something more like" a fair vote - it's the very idea (as in "Plato's Theory of Ideas") of a fair vote. This what we compare any drawing of district lines to determine how fair it is.
uniquethrowagay 2 points 16 days ago
There are better ways to achieve local representation while still respecting the nationwide percentages. See Germany's federal voting system for example.
wreckedcarzz 47 points 17 days ago
Where
pizza
shoe
Me, off-camera: these people are idiots
Goodlucksil 18 points 17 days ago
This has been the electoral college
SourDragon 2 points 15 days ago
"I'm so tired, I could eat a horse"
QueenHawlSera 33 points 17 days ago
Land doesn't vote. People do. End the Electoral College now.
HerbGrower -5 points 16 days ago
Landowners vote though. Giving the plebs the right to vote was a mistake.
HerbGrower 2 points 15 days ago
I thought it was obvious enough to not need it, ahh well.
blackbrook 13 points 17 days ago
TIL pizza is a where.
DevDave 13 points 17 days ago
Yes the Electoral college sucks but popular vote isn't a utopia either without some adjustments.
CGP Grey's "The Voting System That's Actually Too Good for Politicians to Allow" -
Sharkticon 6 points 17 days ago
There's a part of that I don't quite understand. So it said white tiger got 65% of the vote. It doesn't need 65 it only needs 33 so anything over 33 was taken off and their second choice got picked instead. But how is that done exactly? I mean did all 65% that voted for white tiger have the exact same ballot? Every last one of them picked the other tiger second? What if some of them hadn't? What if some of them picked the Silverback Gorilla second? How do we choose which of those 65% go to another person? That's the part I don't understand.
Rivalarrival 2 points 17 days ago
If I understand correctly, after each round, at least one name will be removed from everyone's ballot. If anyone meets the threshold, their name will be removed (and they win a seat). If nobody reaches the threshold, the lowest name will be removed. Either way, after the name is removed, every ballot will be counted again in the next round.
DevDave 2 points 17 days ago
That voting system is indeed too idealistic. The ideal is that if 65% of a voting population votes for the more popular candidate of Party A, everything above the cut off would go to the next highest candidate that belongs to Party. That way 65% of the voting population is ideally represented by the same political Party.
There are a bunch of problems with this of course. What if the 2nd candidate is under investigation for eating babies? Or who is to guarantee Candidate 2 will make the same policy decisions? No one would ever vote opposite of their party's position! \s
I believe Australia had an incident were almost no one voted for a politician but they still won. Vaguely remember that was ~20 years ago and a lot of people were not happy with that.
Sharkticon 2 points 17 days ago
So if I understand you what you're saying is they don't actually look at those ballots. They just assume anyone who voted for the white tiger in this scenario would automatically have picked the other tiger second? So they just ignore the rankings on the ballots entirely?
Yeah that sounds nuts. What would even be the point of having ranked choices then?
DevDave 2 points 17 days ago
i went back and rewatched the video. It sounds like Grey implied everyone voted White tiger as 1st pick and the other tiger as 2nd. No explanation of how that would work tho.
Synapsisdos 1 point 17 days ago
That was possibly Ricky Muir in 2013 from the Australian Motor Enthusiasts Party. He was running in Victoria for the nathional Senate. He got 0.5% of the primary vote in but because of a feature called Group Voting Ticket a lot of minor parties sharing preferences so he kept getting preferences until he reach quota. GVT is no longer used in the national Senate
Natanael 0 points 17 days ago
EDIT: I'm describing single winner elections.
Every round, you count one new step of rankings, and eliminate the lowest candidate.
Round one starts with simply counting all 1st rank votes first.
Everybody's vote counts once, to one person. It goes to that voter's highest still-in-the-running candidate.
In the first round, if some candidate already gets 50%, they win directly. If not, you eliminate the person with the lowest votes.
(some variants pre-filter all candidates with too few total votes to have a chance, especially people who didn't even get ranked by most, or only low ranks)
What happens now is that people whose 1st vote was for the eliminated person gets redirected to their next highest person still in the running for the next round on the ballot which they cast. So in round 2 that's your rank 2 on your ballot. Each remaining candidate now has their 1st rank votes from round 1 plus also their 2nd rank votes from all ballots which had been cast to the now-eliminated candidate.
Note that in each consecutive round, all votes which was already counted to a person who still in the running in that round remains untouched. So all who picked a 1st which is still in are still getting counted to that person. You don't look at your 2nd rank yet if your 1st is still active.
So now in round 2, after the redirection to second choices, if that puts somebody over 50% they win. If not you eliminate yet another person, the lowest one every time. Every vote counted to that eliminated person, either 1st's or 2nd's, now gets redistributed again to that voter's next highest person still in the running on their cast ballot - if your 1st is eliminated now, it goes to the 2nd if that person still is in, if not it goes to your 3rd. If you were already on your 2nd and that person is eliminated, it also goes to your 3rd. If somebody's 1st and 2nd are eliminated AND they don't have a 3rd, their vote gets ignored in the rest of the tallying process.
In round 3 and on you just keep going, until somebody gets 50% or all but one is eliminated. You may force a revote in many places if that person is beneath some threshold.
Rivalarrival 2 points 17 days ago
Please rewatch the video from about 4:40. Your comment doesn't address the "White Tiger", 65% issue.
Ideally, white tiger, purple tiger, and green gorrilla would be elected, as this is the outcome most proportional to voter intent.
But under the logic you describe, purple tiger, with the least votes, would be eliminated after the first round. 2/3 of the populace have indicated they want tigers, but we're about to empanel one tiger and two gorillas.
In actuality, we are not removing the least popular candidate in each round. We are only removing the least popular option if the most popular option does not exceed the mathematical threshold for locking a seat. If they do exceed that threshold, we are removing the top candidate - not the bottom - before we count the next round. The top candidate gets the first seat, and the remaining candidates are competing for the second and third seats.
Natanael 1 point 16 days ago
I was describing single winner, you're describing multiple winner
Those are implemented very differently.
You can guarantee that popular choices gets represented (assuming enough seats for all popular choices) if you do pre-filtering rounds where you give weighted scoring to candidates based on their accumulated ballot rank positions. This would quickly sort out many last rank choices and few-first choices. Then you can proceed with the rounds of eliminations.
Practically speaking, perfect fairness is mathematically proven impossible. You have to make tradeoffs and pick a system that will likely get a good enough result
Sharkticon 2 points 17 days ago
No I'm sorry I don't think you watched the same video I did or you didn't read my comment very carefully. You're basically describing ranked choice voting which is very simple yeah. That was not my question.
redditStinksSuperBad 4 points 15 days ago
You're assuming that there isn't a pizza store called "Pizza!" and a restaurant called this old shoe that serves shoes.
Tollana1234567 9 points 17 days ago
as a senator she would have alot more voting power in congress.
atomicbocks 7 points 17 days ago
The United States is and always has been a federal hybrid not a true direct democracy. I don’t like it any more than you do but the president is elected by the states and not by the people and this was intentional in the design of the government. The “grand experiment” is the compromise between federal and democratic systems. Unfortunately the democratic side has lost ground like with the capping of the House. If we want to turn our government into a direct democracy then we need to do more than do away with the electoral college.
grue 6 points 17 days ago
The United States is and always has been a federal hybrid not a true direct democracy
Technically, it was briefly a confederation between 1781 and 1789, but that just supports your real point even more.
thatKamGuy 7 points 15 days ago
The electoral college is a weird vestige of an earlier time. Each state gets apportioned a vote equal to the number of senators and congressmen they get; so the least populous states get an outsized voice in appointing a President.
When the law to cap the size of the US house to 435 representatives was passed in the very early 1900s - the US population was only ~90m. If instead the size of the elected body was allowed to grow in line with population, the US would have something closer to ~1,600 representatives currently, and as a result the electoral college would be much more equitable.
skidicarus 8 points 15 days ago
Not in a straightforward manner, no. One vote is just one vote. Most states are winner takes all, so the simple majority winner of, say, California takes all the electoral votes in California. It just so happens that California has less electoral votes per capita than states like Wyoming.
TronBronson 6 points 15 days ago
Well the senate is composed of 2 legislators from each state, so technically and in practice smaller states can band together effectively and distort policy that a majority of the people would be for. Theres a strong argument that my vote in Maine carries more political weight than a vote in california when it comes to the senate. This has allowed the southern states to drag their feet on policy over the years, and caused a lot of questions about representation in the country. So moving down the line, our presidential elections use an electoral college where house seats (which are restricted and tied to the population + senate seats = EC votes) So when it comes to electing presidents a state like maine with 1M people is punching way above its representation weight compared to california. Most of the EC votes are winner takes all which is the reason why california votes blue and alabama votes red for the president. Its also the reason why Nebraska and maine split their votes to offer people fair represenation in their districts.
TLDR: Yes and its mathematically supported
BarneyPiccolo 2 points 15 days ago
Rhode Island
TronBronson 1 point 15 days ago
Even i forget they are a state sometime.
rmuk 4 points 15 days ago
votes from certain states aren’t worth more than votes from other states in America
There you go. Though, for the record: votes from certain states are worth more than votes from other states in America.
OccamsRazer 1 point 13 days ago
Sort of. The idea is to avoid giving California power to decide policy for the entire country.
Mycatiskai 5 points 16 days ago
Could a voting bloc of Democrats move to Wyoming pretending to be Republican and then swing the vote before the RNC has any idea what happened. If they are so sparsely populated it can't be that hard to outvoted them.
Mycatiskai 6 points 15 days ago
Well almost 200k people would need to move there. Making Puerto Rico a state would probably be easier.
adarza 5 points 17 days ago
if the baseline for district size was the population of the least populated state (wyoming), and the house of representatives and electoral college were increased in size as needed to accommodate...
the outcome of every presidential election since the house was capped at 435 would remain unchanged, with the possible and singular exception of 2000--but there were other 'circumstances' involved then that gave that election away.
Zorg 2 points 17 days ago
Yet if we didn't just tweak a terrible voting system and got rid of the EC, 5 elections would have had different outcomes - as in the will of the majority of voters would have choose a different president a whole five times.
flop_leash_973 3 points 15 days ago
This would only make since as an example of the Electoral College if you adding something to adjust for everyone's theoretical impact on the meal.
If every voted but Liz was also paying a larger percentage of the bill than everyone else then it would make sense that her opinion outweighs everyone else.
Devial 4 points 15 days ago
Is Liz supposed to be a voter from Wyoming or the State of Wyoming itself? If the former, there should be like a dozen more people whose votes are worth less than her’s while still outweighing her total voting power.
Except several republicans have lost the popular vote and been elected president anyway, so clearly it's entirely possible for Liz's old shoe meal to outvote everyone else, if she's in the minority.
Devial 1 point 15 days ago
Yes it does. It correlates with the unpopular vote winning, because votes aren't evenly weighted across people.
It's not that deep. It's a joke satirising something that literally actually happens, it being over the top and not exactly like in reality is the point, because this is supposed to be, hold on to your hat, a joke and not a politcal science lecture.
Gold_E_Lox 1 point 16 days ago
and with such a robust education system, everyone knows exactly whay they are voting for :D
Jhogenbaum 2 points 15 days ago
This makes the most sense as a "who to vote for" in the [private] primary systems we use to determine who to vote for in our very openly rigged two party system. We/the "two parties" purposely drag the parties to extremes by having their primaries in certain states and candidates are driven to court extremes and we pretend that's good as many valid candidates are "weeded out" that way. (Again, it's a private system, So even non-centrist candidates, famously Bernie, can just be ignored as the party chooses who they want)
OccamsRazer 1 point 13 days ago
How about everyone eats what they want? Not everything needs to be decided by the federal government.
PangurBan -4 points 17 days ago
Or, hear me out, we make the federal government less important so having fair representation doesn't matter quite as much. Focus more on state and local government, which solves the problem across multiple fronts. Also solves the problem of greedy wannabe royalty since the position no longer has power and therefore doesn't attract power hungry individuals.
Not everything is the same everywhere. Having a huge unified govt is... Kinda silly?
This is what the founders of America wanted by the way.
infinitesunrise 3 points 17 days ago
We fought a really bloody war over the outcome of this proposition.
heartSagan5 3 points 17 days ago
Except being human should be universal, not contingent to state — like it was before the Civil War.
Kierunkowy74 -14 points 17 days ago
"Indeed, let's throw weighted votes out! All votes shall be equal!"
European elections is now a simple game. Hundreds of millions are voting for a day and at the end, the Germans always win.
politicalmemes
@lemmy.world
12660
9443
9071
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes 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.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
go to feed...
politicalmemes
@lemmy.world
12660
9443
9071
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes 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.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
go to feed...
Now do the US Senate.
save