Former US President Donald Trump has been found guilty of thirty-four counts of falsifying business records to influence the outcome of the 2016 election

but a low-voter turnout can also send a message that voters are unhappy, and that too influences future elections.

If by "influence elections" you mean "lets politicians know they can get away with more because they are not held accountable" I would 100% agree with you there.

Can a candidate be virtuous and upstanding while also promoting racist and homophobic policies?

Devils advocate: from their point of view, based on the values and tropes present in their cultural bubble, what they're advocating for isn't homophobic or racist, it's just the way things should be.

I like the point you're making but it feels a little contradictory. Can a candidate be virtuous and upstanding while also promoting racist and homophobic policies?

I agree that’s why I said there’s a lot of reasons it couldn’t really happen that way. But it’s partly because we’re just sort of lucky to have the Democratic coalition we have. Not too long ago historically though, the Republicans were the party of rapacious capitalism but also fairly cosmopolitan outlooks with some openness to civil rights and feminist principles. Meanwhile the Democrats had a dominant contingent of virulent Jim Crow racists but were also pro-farmer and pro-labor. Thankfully party polarization wasn’t as strong then and there was a lot of crossover in policy preferences across regions and between parties. But party compositions like that with the levels of internal ideological consistency we have today would make for way more difficult choices in the voting booth.

Yeah our media ecosystem is less concerned with informing people than giving them canned arguments or a permissions structure to do and say awful things while still feeling like you’re a good person. It’s gross.

The number of people who even pay attention to primaries more than a week ahead of time are a teeny tiny portion of the electorate. The number of people who can actually make these decisions are basically a rounding error. Most people are just gonna take the choices presented to them without thinking too much about how the choices got narrowed down.

No because we have a two party system that happens to have a few professional cranks who pretend to be third parties but don’t actually have any of the party infrastructure to govern because they’re purely fundraising machines.

A vote isn’t a statement that you’re gonna Stan for some dude. It’s hiring a person to do a job. If the stakes are such that whoever ends up doing that job is going to perpetuate or begin a process that will suppress things you view as core to who you are or negatively impact your livelihood then performative wank voting is the same as putting that person in charge. You can only afford to hold your nose in that way if these issues are more theoretical positions you hold than actual skin you have in the game.

The problem with the American system is that if you do that, the third party just ends up functioning as a spoiler. The left leaning votes get split between the Democratic candidate and the third party candidate, while the right leaning votes don't get split and all go to the Republican candidate, so the Republican candidate wins. It means instead of choosing either left leaning candidate, you're actually "choosing" the Republican candidate, just with extra steps.

That's the big problem with First Past The Post electoral systems.

It's very tough to have any kind of incremental change under FPTP. Especially if it doesn't come from the party hierarchy. Meaning, if the party Big Wigs don't orchestrate "We are now Z instead of Y", the change is much, much, much more unlikely to occur.

There are two "realistic" choices in America. Democrat, Republican. That's it. Maybe, maybe occasional local districts, when considering local candidates, might go for Green or Democratic Socialistic or Libertarian or Mars First or whatever the fuck; but state wide, and especially federal, no. Democrat, Republican. There is no other. You can vote Center, or you can vote Right.

Incremental societal change in the flavor of political candidates, in the theoretical ebb and flow of the two parties, in the expressed political desires of the citizens, would take generations. You'd have to see first some, then more, then many more, then lots, then most, of the local districts, followed by those districts starting to turn their whole states, away from one of those two parties.

And that would have to happen across most of the states all at the same time or it would just leave those changing states left out. Would weaken them on the national level where one of the two parties was being replaced.

You have a new political movement that starts to form in this FPTP system. Lines say. The existing big parties are Stripes and Squares. But some citizens start to reject both Stripes and Squares, and vote for candidates that stand up and proclaim themselves Line.

First of all, most candidates won't do that. They want to win. And bowing to either Stripes or Squares means they might get some kind of help, support in the form of money and so forth, from the Stripes Party or the Square Party. It means they don't get attacked and sabotaged by whichever of Stripes or Square is "closer" to them ideologically (which is something the opposite would be cheering and looking to support since it weakens their opposition).

So by needing to "work with" the established party, those incumbents get to corrupt and control and contain the Line candidates. Talk them out of acting so Line, being so Line, trying to push for Line initiatives and Line plans. Knock that Line shit off, don't you know you're a member of Stripes?

But let's say Line keeps gathering grass roots support. Despite the best effort of Stripes, those Line usurpers keep taking districts. City council and mayor seats, county board seats, eventually they're sitting in State Senate and State House seats.

Generations. Decades. The whole while, the established parties are fighting the rise. They like things as they are now; where they're in charge. Why would Stripes want to yield power to Line? Don't the asshat citizens who vote Line know how important Stripes is, how long Stripes has been around? Stripes won't go quietly, and one of their big attack angles will be "you're making it easier for Square to win." FPTP.

But let's say it keeps happening. After you have lots of states where Line has shunted Stripes into the background, eventually you might get to a point where the National Line Party is considered more relevant than the National Stripes Party.

However, that's where the real hell starts. Because the US has an Electoral College, not popular vote. It's one thing for a State that's turned Line to elect Line candidates to Federal seats in the US Congress. That's still a state-wide district the other states don't impact in any really significant way. Even Senator is still just half of their state for all intents and purposes.

For President though, you'd still have Stripes and Squares. And as Line rises, Stripes will pitch a huge fit about diluting their base so it strengthens Square. And, again, Square would love it. "Sure, vote Line, go right ahead." You have 100% of the country, and (right now as an example) the country's Electoral Votes are about 50%-50% between the two national parties. Let's say that's what's happening with Stripes and Squares.

10% for Line means you have 40% for Stripes, but still 50% for Squares. Presto, Squares start winning the Presidency.

The only way that part changes is all across the nation Line has to basically supplant Stripes. Not just some states, not just some districts. Between the time Lines becomes a serious national player, and the time Line becomes "the other party" out of the two that are allowed to be serious contenders for the Presidency under FPTP, Line's rise will basically make it all but certain Square holds the Presidency.

And all while Line is struggling to coalesce into that National Party that takes its seat across the table from Square as the other choice offered to the entire nation, Square will be laughing in glee at Stripes, while Stripes frantically tries to dismantle Line to keep Stripes alive.

Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's chaos. Yes, it locks the nation into this bullshit.

What happens in a parliamentary system? Not that. Even with First-Past-The-Vote, when certain districts in a state or in a nation go Line, that doesn't mean Line is fucking things up for Stripes. Or giving Square some kind of advantage. It just means both Stripes and Square, along with Triangle and Circle and Trapezoid and Parallelogram and any other parties in the national parliament have a new faction to negotiate with and possibly form a government with.

And after forming a government they pick one of that coalition as the leader, the PM or President or whatever you call them. It's not a separate election of the nation; the citizens already voted knowing that if their party was able to slide into the majority and be part of the "ruling coalition", their party would have some level (hopefully) of say over who got be Big Wigs in the subsequent government. Possibly, if their party is valuable enough, their party might even supply The Leader and have Leader-sized say.

Maybe, in the early days of Line, the group of big established parties ignore Line. If there's a hundred seats in the national parliament and Line only has two, then unless the math works out that there's a deadlock and one or two votes could be the swing, no one in those big established parties really gives a fuck what Line thinks. But Line would still have a seat, and still have a platform. Line would still be able to try to broaden their support amongst the citizens.

You know, the people politicians are supposed to be working for.

As the elections roll past, and the citizens respond by falling into Line (sorry, couldn't resist), Line would grow and become more relevant. In a way that doesn't toss a nuclear warhead into the political process. Line could organically rise. As Line grows from isolated oddity to something with relevance, their influence would begin to be felt.

Eventually you'd see Line become one of "the" major players on their side of the ideological aisle. Where before maybe it was Stripes, Circle, and Triangle who basically "ran the country" at the national level, maybe mostly Stripes and some of Triangle fade off as their voters fall into Line, and if that trend continues Line becomes "the" major party on their side of the aisle.

While, of course, continuing to have to interact with all the other parties to find consensus in government. Whether those other parties (ideologically similar or not) are waxing or waning wouldn't matter, votes are votes. Whether it's a citizen's vote or the seat's vote, they'd all add up to a government that has to find consensus to function.

And consensus is a moderating factor. Consensus leavens extremism. FPTP doesn't. All or nothing doesn't. Filibuster doesn't. Those things encourage extremism, encourage harsh divisions.

Ranked Choice Voting or some variation of that, some form of voting that eliminates First Past The Post, would be the best change for America to pull us out of this chaotic bullshit that's leading us teetering on the brink of civil war as as Center and Right feud. Failing that, a parliamentary system that at least reduces the impact of FPTP down to the district level (if you have districts all voting FPTP, but lots of districts, resulting in lots of potential candidates who could sit those seats, that could very likely lessen the stark ideological divides).

But any kind of change to the American political system requires Constitutional change. Which means a Constitutional Convention. In this political climate, we might as well just start shooting at each other. It'd be less violent than the hell that would erupt as States and their Federal Congressional Officials began wading into one another over "how dare you" and "over my cold dead body" and "filibuster" and seventeen hundred other kinds of obstruction and delay.

Texas and California, for example, are considered to be ideologically different states. Those two states are unlikely to agree on how to change the Constitution. If one looks to be "winning", the other is going to pull out every possible stop to prevent losing. It could be anything, any kind of change.

And both states have pockets of "Red" and "Blue." Rural California is considered to be red, but they're outmatched by the number of urban city dwellers so the state tends to lean Blue. Meanwhile, Texas has mostly Blue cities, but the Red officials constantly tweak and fiddle with the intra-state levers of power to keep Blue and Blue Cities from having any real power, keep those cities needing to buckle and break under the whims of the rural Red politicians who rule with iron fists.

So not only would you have chaos on the Congressional level, or on the State level, but within many of the states all hell would be breaking lose on the local level as well. Texas alone would probably be its own whole chapter of ultra-bloody history after the dust settled, as citizens within it tried to swing "their state" one way or another regarding whatever Constitutional Convention changes they wanted Texas to either support or oppose.

And remember, throughout this whole hypothetical Constitutional Convention, you still have the Democratic and Republican National Parties. Who, if we were considering removing FPTP or switching to a Parliament system, would also be fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. They benefit from FPTP and Congress. They benefit from deadlock and harsh ideological divides. That's where their power comes from.

People with power almost never agree to give it up. They almost always have to be forced to give it up. After all, power is power. It gives you power. The ability to Do Things. Especially to be able to Do Them Your Way. That's why we call it power. The DNC and RNC have absolutely no interest in eliminating FPTP, or in switching America away from the Electoral College, or away from Congress.

So no, there is no "next closest thing" in American politics. Sometimes, occasionally, at the local level, maybe. But moving that change, that "next closest thing" from the local level up to the national level so it replaces either the DNC or RNC will take a lifetime. Literally. Some college student who started right now moving and shaking and dealmaking to replace Democrats or Republicans might live to see the end of that journey.

And every step of it, they and whoever joined to help them would be spit on, shunned, ridiculed, assaulted, obstructed, and manipulated to keep them from taking any more steps.

All of this is one reason, just one, I don't see how America doesn't have some sort of wholesale political upheaval period somewhere in the not-distant future. One way or another, we're headed for Major Political Change, and it doesn't look like we're talking centuries before it happens. I wouldn't be at all shocked if it happened within twenty years.

It might be a breakup. It might be a reformation of government into a new form. And it might happen with only political violence, or might happen after physical violence forces political change. It could be a civil war, it could be a national strike, it could be certain states withdrawing from the country (which would just be a different form of civil war).

Something like that is going to happen unless everyone involved agrees to change their minds and back off to a more genteel and good faith form of politics. Of governing.

We had that once in America. Sure people disagreed, but they usually did so civilly. Without plotting every possible trick they could conceive (dirty or otherwise) to ruin their opposition so they don't have to suffer another defeat. If they didn't get what they wanted, they just tried again next time. The need to come together moderated things and people knew how to accept less than total victory.

People didn't see their only option as "Just Win Baby". Total Victory no matter the cost. No matter how much blood you have to spill, how many people you have to spit on, how many groups or whoever you have to marginalize or crush or destroy or ignore, how many lives you have to use as levers to smash others, none of that matters a bit to today's major players in America. People, both politicians and citizens, agreed to agree on some sort of consensus, whereas the climate of the past few decades is "fuck you, the war continues until you capitulate and accept our Total Victory."

Just Win Baby. We're headed for the kind of chaos that makes the chaos of now look quaint. That's where Just Win takes us. There can't be any other path when everyone is so focused on Win rather than Compromise and Consensus.