Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the reelection of former President Trump would be the “end of democracy” in an interview released Saturday by The Guardian.
“It will be the end of democracy, functional democracy,” Sanders said in the interview.
The Vermont senator also said in the interview that he thinks that another round of Trump as the president will be a lot more extreme than the first.
“He’s made that clear,” Sanders said. “There’s a lot of personal bitterness, he’s a bitter man, having gone through four indictments, humiliated, he’s going to take it out on his enemies. We’ve got to explain to the American people what that means to them — what the collapse of American democracy will mean to all of us.”
Sanders’s words echo those President Biden made in a recent campaign speech during which he said that Trump’s return to the presidency would risk American democracy. The president highlighted the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol in an attempt to cement a point about Trump and other Republicans espousing a kind of extremism that was seen by the world on that day.
No but it counts a vote away from another contender without hurting trump. This is the effect of FPTP voting. Essentially, if you have a vote, and you cast your vote for someone who cannot win, your vote is less useful than someone not voting at all. Voting against one candidate only hurts that candidate if the vote you cast won the election. Otherwise it was part of a split vote that helped them win.
> Essentially, if you have a vote, and you cast your vote for someone who cannot win, your vote is less useful than someone not voting at all.
impossible. why are you trying to suppress voter turnout?
the only other candidate i might want to win is jill stein, but i like cornel west ever-so-slightly more. is jill stein splitting the cornel west vote? no. there are people who she will persuade, there are people who he will persuade, and all those people are people who aren’t persuaded by the genocidal politicians we’ve already let try to run the country.
Every vote splits a vote for every other candidate. That’s how first past the post - winner takes all elections work. I would wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment if our voting system didn’t encourage our ugly two party system. I don’t particularly like Joe Biden as a candidate for the next 4 years either. But I understand that the system doesn’t work for me, meaning I have to work within the system. If I want my vote to produce any meaningful change, I have to make sure my vote goes to the candidate that I believe has the best chance of winning while providing the least amount of harm to the country and the highest chance of productive change of that system. That happens to be Biden this year which sucks. But it’s not as dangerous as allowing Trump to win who has clarified twice now that he intends on authoritarian action and being a dictator day one.
> If I want my vote to produce any meaningful change, I have to make sure my vote goes to the candidate that I believe has the best chance of winning while providing the least amount of harm to the country and the highest chance of productive change of that system. That happens to be Biden
biden promised nothing will fundamentally change, and he wasn’t lying: he’s still building the wall and keeping kids in cages.
>Every vote splits a vote for every other candidate. That’s how first past the post - winner takes all elections work.
no, this is just a story that political pundits tell. the narrative of vote-splitting falls apart when you realize that you can never prove how an election would have gone without some candidate or other because you can’t prove a counterfactual.