|
His Purple Majesty posted:How much do you guys get paid to shill for the Democrats? Are the benefits good? Exceptional dental plan
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Motto posted:I'm open to being corrected as I'm mostly working off secondhand knowledge here, but don't even countries with more represenative systems than FPTP end up with essentially two parties holding major power anyway?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:For pointless votes people like you sure seem to care a lot about them I'd care if I thought third-party voters could be talked out of their childishness. I do care about third-party voters convincing others to not vote or throw their vote away through misinformation and general ignorance. My point was just that you're not making any kind of difference by voting third party, and your votes have already been written-off. The Green Party and The Libertarian party are not serious parties. Their candidates are grifters sustaining themselves on the idiocy and false idealism of morons and ignoramuses. Third party voters are worse than Trump voters because not only are they idiots, like Trump voters, they are idiots who believe they're smarter than everyone else and that only they can change the system with their entirely meaningless vote. Voting third party in our system is the pinnacle of prideful stupidity. If we had functional third parties with state and local representation and organization and actual good candidates I'd feel differently. What we have is a couple of useless third parties who trot out their idiot candidates every four years to pine for five percent of the vote so they can get federal funding and on the debate stage only so they can expand their idiot moron grifting operation. I don't care about your votes. I care that you're so ignorant and proud that you think you're making a difference. It disgusts me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
It's really all very simple electoral math. In a first-past-the-post system for a single decision there will only ever be two viable options at most. Whoever gets the most votes wins, so whoever forms the biggest voting bloc wins, so if one group gets big enough the only possible viable response is an equally large group. The places where third parties can viably be inserted are in local elections with limited electorates, so that you actually have a chance of getting the majority of the vote. In a full-country FPTP election it's 2 party or complete bust. The key to creating a viable third party in the US is either removing the office of the president as an elected position (pure parliamentary systems give more leeway for significant third party blocs, but having a single elected "ruler" position sways representative votes), or changing the voting system to something like Australia's preferential voting. Our election system is designed in a way that creates a two-party system. Because of that, third party votes for the office of the president are nearly completely worthless except as spoilers against the "next best" candidate, or as a salve on consciences. Which is fine. Just don't try to pretend that you're making an attempt at creating a viable third party by voting for president, because you're not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:While I do think you're right, I have a feeling it would make Democrats even more indignant since every other argument they make is premised on them being the only option for leftists. Why would you give a poo poo? You aren't part of the party, so what does it matter?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Your can't change the nature of a party just with a general election vote, particularly when you're voting for either the third-party who thinks vaccines are bad and is scared of wi-fi, or the third party candidate that says not being able to find Russia on a map will help him avoid war with Russia. I don't want the Democratic party to shift to try to capture those voters, and you shouldnt either. If you want the Dems to turn left, get involved in politics and build a movement for change within the party. Look at what Bernie did - while everyone focuses on his Hillary endorsement, hes founded an organization to push progressive candidates in downballot races.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
If you vote third party and canvas, phone bank, run as a candidate yourself, or work towards local level politics as that party then good for you. You are actually trying to do something. This doesn't apply to anyone in this thread, I am certain. You don't actually care about progressing that party, you're just acting smug and pretending you're better than the idiots that pull the lever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Vote Jill Stein if you believe she would make a great president. Don't vote for her if you think she'd make a lousy president but want to express your disgust for the system. It's not big, grown-up, or clever. Remember, the Green Party isn't just "The Democrats, but more left-wing." Green parties are their own thing, and they focus on the health of the environment. Likewise, the Libertarian party is not "The Republicans, but purer and less corrupt." They have their own philosophy which is very different from the Republican party line. In the UK, everyone who was dissatisfied with the political process voted the smaller third party, the Liberal Democrats. Eventually they finally got a little power in coalition with the Conservatives. When they turned out to be just politicians like any other, people who had loyally voted for them were very disillusioned. Just because a party has never had power, doesn't mean they are better than the other parties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why would you give a poo poo? You aren't part of the party, so what does it matter? I don't, I was just making a snide comment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Third party voters are worse than Trump voters What about the third party voters who would vote for Trump if they didn't vote for a third party. Are they worse than Trump voters too? Are you saying you want them to vote for Trump?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Vote Jill Stein if you believe she would make a great president. Don't vote for her if you think she'd make a lousy president but want to express your disgust for the system. It's not big, grown-up, or clever. The same applies to republicans and democrats. Don't vote for Trump because you hate Hillary or Hillary because you hate Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:You're not making any kind of difference; you're maintaining the status quo by not participating in one of the two major parties and pulling them in the direction you'd like to see them shift. Who What Now posted:Why would you give a poo poo? You aren't part of the party, so what does it matter? Main Paineframe posted:get involved in politics and build a movement for change within the party. Look at what Bernie did - while everyone focuses on his Hillary endorsement, hes founded an organization to push progressive candidates in downballot races. I like the rhetorical judo we've gone through here where we've made "voting third party for president" and "participating in local politics" somehow mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Honestly just imagine the 'rhetorical judo' involved in making a statement like 'you're maintaining the status quo by not participating in one of the two major parties'. Neither party gets moved from the inside, when you look at the major progressive advances($15 minimum wage, gay rights, pot legalization being the biggest off the top of my head) in the last twenty or so years its been activists on the outside, at the local level that have moved democrats left and democratic politicians pushed against all those things super loving hard until they decided it was politically beneficial to do otherwise. If anything that is proof that the Democrat party doesn't really stand for anything besides maintaining the status quo until there is enough frustration among the left that it looks like it might amount to something and then the democrats budge a little and make a slight change. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Lets keep in mind politics are all hero and heel so a third party breakout voter doesnr do anything. Besides libertarians are mind washed by pro russian propaganda ao they can only hope to help hillary win and restore america in her image.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:Honestly just imagine the 'rhetorical judo' involved in making a statement like 'you're maintaining the status quo by not participating in one of the two major parties'. Neither party gets moved from the inside, when you look at the major progressive advances($15 minimum wage, gay rights, pot legalization being the biggest off the top of my head) in the last twenty or so years its been activists on the outside, at the local level that have moved democrats left and democratic politicians pushed against all those things super loving hard until they decided it was politically beneficial to do otherwise. Yeah, and those things didn't happen under a Republican President. The point is that you can't just vote and do nothing else and expect things to change. You have to vote and on top of that work towards change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Yeah, and those things didn't happen under a Republican President. The point is that you can't just vote and do nothing else and expect things to change. You have to vote and on top of that work towards change. I have serious doubts that who is president influenced any of those things. Obama certainly didn't come out and support Seattle's $15 minimum wage. He hasn't come out in support of pot legalization. I'm not saying 'don't vote'. I'm saying that if you're a progressive a lot of the time voting D is working against your interests because those politicians you voted for will work against what you want. Having worked on the $15 minimum wage in Seattle I know from experience that democrats that you voted for will work against progressive change every chance they get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Yeah, and those things didn't happen under a Republican President. The point is that you can't just vote and do nothing else and expect things to change. You have to vote and on top of that work towards change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Voting third party, especially when most of America doesn't even vote, is stupid because your candidate will never, ever loving win AND our third parties have no real local presence to speak of. It is the most useless, pointless, self-centered way to use your vote. It sends no message. Furthermore, we don't even have any good third parties. A third party vote is just a very tiny whine and nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Voting third party, especially when most of America doesn't even vote, is stupid because your candidate will never, ever loving win AND our third parties have no real local presence to speak of. It is the most useless, pointless, self-centered way to use your vote. It sends no message.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:I have serious doubts that who is president influenced any of those things. Obama certainly didn't come out and support Seattle's $15 minimum wage. He hasn't come out in support of pot legalization. I'm not saying 'don't vote'. I'm saying that if you're a progressive a lot of the time voting D is working against your interests because those politicians you voted for will work against what you want. Having worked on the $15 minimum wage in Seattle I know from experience that democrats that you voted for will work against progressive change every chance they get. If you vote in a large democracy, you won't ever get exactly what you want. You'll never get a president who not only agrees with everything you agree with, he/she also manages to push through all the changes that are most important to you, and reacts your way to any new world events (such as wars) that come up. Even Obama probably wishes that President Obama had pushed a few things harder or dealt with things a different way. It's an imperfect world. The establishment will always push back against the ideals of the young, but the young become the establishment, and sooner or later the crazy starry eyed idealism is received wisdom. It's not unusual for young people to refuse to vote on the grounds that the establishment is so far from their ideals that it is not worth engaging with, and that's why political pollsters tend to ignore the 18-34 age bracket. There's no point in worrying about the desires of a demographic that probably won't vote. Old folk vote with steely regularity, because they have realized that their vote really does matter, and that's why campaigns pander to them. They've lived through the process of their far-out ideas becoming "the way things are" and they understand that turning up counts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:If you vote in a large democracy, you won't ever get exactly what you want. You'll never get a president who not only agrees with everything you agree with, he/she also manages to push through all the changes that are most important to you, and reacts your way to any new world events (such as wars) that come up. Even Obama probably wishes that President Obama had pushed a few things harder or dealt with things a different way. It's an imperfect world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:If you vote in a large democracy, you won't ever get exactly what you want. You'll never get a president who not only agrees with everything you agree with, he/she also manages to push through all the changes that are most important to you, and reacts your way to any new world events (such as wars) that come up. Even Obama probably wishes that President Obama had pushed a few things harder or dealt with things a different way. It's an imperfect world. I agree with most of what you said but the problem is not "the establishment" pushing back on the ideals of the young. It's that the current ideals of the young - free healthcare, free college, student loan debt forgiveness, etc. - are completely and utterly unachievable while Republicans exist and have a majority in congress. The problem with younger and third party voters is that they typically have no knowledge of how government functions, who writes the laws, the powers of the president, and so on. They just think voting for president is the most important and the president is king and controls everything and that's it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
twodot posted:People who vote third party realize it's an imperfect world, and they want their imperfect third party candidate to be president. People who vote third party also vote, so your last paragraph is confusing. They're also too stupid to understand their third party candidate will never, ever be president in a first past the post system, if they even know what that is. Idealistic and stupid are a bad combination.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:I don't, I was just making a snide comment. Yeah, that seems to be all third-party voters are actually capable of. Bushiz posted:I like the rhetorical judo we've gone through here where we've made "voting third party for president" and "participating in local politics" somehow mutually exclusive. They aren't mutual exclusive in principal, but somehow you never see anyone actually doing both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yeah, that seems to be all third-party voters are actually capable of. Could be because Libertarianism is a junk ideology that doesn't even stand up to the most simple of scrutiny, and their candidate is dumber than Trump, and the Green Party has people who believe in auras and crystal healing, and anti-vaxxers in their tent of idiots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:The problem with younger and third party voters is that they typically have no knowledge of how government functions, who writes the laws, the powers of the president, and so on. They just think voting for president is the most important and the president is king and controls everything and that's it. As evidenced by the massive drop off of younger voters for midterm elections, which are arguably more important than presidential ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:If you vote in a large democracy, you won't ever get exactly what you want. You'll never get a president who not only agrees with everything you agree with, he/she also manages to push through all the changes that are most important to you, and reacts your way to any new world events (such as wars) that come up. Even Obama probably wishes that President Obama had pushed a few things harder or dealt with things a different way. It's an imperfect world. My argument isn't about getting what you want, but more, to me, the notion that a progressive should vote for democrat because the democrat is more likely to work with them. Its just not true. At the most a democratic politician is slightly less likely to actively work against progressives. Progressives really have nowhere to turn. I'm probably not the first person on the far left to say that the green party is really kind of terrible, their local action is extremely limited and their presidential candidates are historically unimpressive. To completely clarify my opinion on whether you can throw away your vote, I think that the only time a person is throwing away their vote is if they aren't voting at all. The main concern of the republican and democratic parties are to maintain their and their supporters' power base, so long as you are casting your vote for either of them you're supporting that power base. I'm not even going to say thats a bad thing. I can completely understand being ok with either of those parties in power, the system in the US is such a way that most people aren't given the chance to ever think outside checking the box next to every (R) or (D) they see. My main thing to people who vote that way is you better be ok with the consequences of having either of those parties in power in the US. This thing where we've decided that a person who votes for X is an idiot is wrong on so many levels, the biggest in my eyes being that that is exactly what politicians in power want. "If you don't vote for my candidate, you're an idiot!" That is a great narrative if you're in one of the groups in power for sure, but over all its detrimental to having actual political conversations. The poster Noam Chomsky might be familiar with the quote of Chomsky's about how the best way to keep people obedient is by allowing lively debate, but by limiting the scope of acceptable opinion of the debate? By calling third party voters idiots or telling them their vote is a waste that is exactly what you're doing, limiting the spectrum of debate. I'm not going to get into the ageism thing too much except to say that in my opinion people who don't vote, don't do so because they've been abandoned by the political system. Young people have little to no representation in politics whether its on changing our education system for the better, or giving young people a more robust avenue for political action they've been abandoned. The same is true for all the other large blocs of non-voters(homeless, poor, minorities). When only 60% of your voter eligible population is voting you're leaving out almost half of people. Thats not even getting into the 10% of people with felonies who may or may not be justified in having those felonies because of racist policies put into place by both democrats and republicans still in power today or talking about how maybe if we had a proper education system maybe we could lower the voting age or at least give younger people more political responsibility than they currently have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Could be because Libertarianism is a junk ideology that doesn't even stand up to the most simple of scrutiny, and their candidate is dumber than Trump, and the Green Party has people who believe in auras and crystal healing, and anti-vaxxers in their tent of idiots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:My argument isn't about getting what you want, but more, to me, the notion that a progressive should vote for democrat because the democrat is more likely to work with them. Its just not true. At the most a democratic politician is slightly less likely to actively work against progressives. Progressives really have nowhere to turn. I'm probably not the first person on the far left to say that the green party is really kind of terrible, their local action is extremely limited and their presidential candidates are historically unimpressive. How old are you? If you don't think the government has been much more "progressive" - which is an empty term, by the way, invented to counter the toxification of "liberal" by Republicans - in eight years of Obama, after the horrid eight years of Bush, then I don't think you know what the gently caress you're talking about. A Democratic president will absolutely work more with Progressives than a Republican president will, especially when they get to appoint a few Supreme Court Justices, as Clinton will. Also, even Chomsky is saying to go pull the loving lever for Clinton: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/16/chomsky_on_supporting_sanders_why_he Chomsky posted:If Clinton is nominated and it comes to a choice between Clinton and Trump, in a swing state, a state where it’s going to matter which way you vote, I would vote against Trump, and by elementary arithmetic, that means you hold your nose and you vote Democrat. And, yes, third party voters are loving idiots. Go hold your nose and vote for the candidate closest to your views and then work within one of the two major parties to affect change. But, that's too loving hard, which is why the only people who show up to local party meetings are older. Young and idealistic people do not participate in the system or the process beyond some bullshit token protest vote - if they DO vote - every four years, which is why third party voters are being told they're idiots. Young people have no representation because they don't give a poo poo, don't know how anything works, and don't loving vote. They also buy into bullshit narratives and false equivalency like no one else. We joke about how the old are out of touch but the young don't even try to get in touch. My argument is vote for a party that can actually win and affect some kind of change, stay informed, and participate in the process beyond a token vote every four years. Build an actual movement instead of voting for grifters like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. Huzanko fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
How old are you? I'm only old enough to have experienced two democratic presidents, Obama and Clinton. Neither were 'progressive' a term(only as empty as you make it, really its as empty a term as conservative or liberal) that to me describes a person on the global left spectrum of politics. Neither worked towards big progressive issues of their time, to me, for Clinton the big one was gay rights and with Obama raising the minimum wage and more recently pot legalization. Chomsky said you should vote for Clinton in a swing state. quote:But now, going back to who should you push the button for, well, my own—in the primaries, I would prefer Bernie Sanders. If Clinton is nominated and it comes to a choice between Clinton and Trump, in a swing state, a state where it’s going to matter which way you vote, I would vote against Trump, and by elementary arithmetic, that means you hold your nose and you vote Democrat. Note that he never says Clinton is a 'good' candidate. He says hold your nose, implying Clinton stinks. Rightfully so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:My argument isn't about getting what you want, but more, to me, the notion that a progressive should vote for democrat because the democrat is more likely to work with them. Its just not true. At the most a democratic politician is slightly less likely to actively work against progressives. Progressives really have nowhere to turn. Think of voting like breeding plants. A gardener starts out with only red roses and wants to breed pink roses. Every year he selects the seed from the palest roses, and plants them the next year. On year 3, the roses are barely paler than the ones he started with. His neighbor laughs at him, saying he is wasting his effort and should just give up. But 20 years later, the gardener has bred a perfect pink rose. Democrats are more likely to work with "progressives" than Republicans, even if only slightly. And over time, this is what matters. Consider the progressive gay rights struggle. It didn't start off with the proposal of full equality and equal marriage rights. It started off with campaigns for decriminalisation. And this was considered hopelessly radical at the time. But they kept trying. Was their cause hopeless because gay marriage and gay people in the military was only made legal in the last 8 years? Should the early campaigners in the '60s, many of whom did not live to see this day, have given up because the public and establishment was resistant? Equally, consider the squeeze on abortion rights by the Republicans. They didn't start by trying to unilaterally ban abortion, even though that is what they want. They just tighten up regulations here, reduce subsidies there, until finally it is not economically or legally viable to provide abortion services in certain parts of certain states. And the more that abortions are seen as beyond the pale, eventually the less resistance to banning abortion altogether.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:How old are you? I'm only old enough to have experienced two democratic presidents, Obama and Clinton. Neither were 'progressive' a term(only as empty as you make it, really its as empty a term as conservative or liberal) that to me describes a person on the global left spectrum of politics. Neither worked towards big progressive issues of their time, to me, for Clinton the big one was gay rights and with Obama raising the minimum wage and more recently pot legalization. I'm not saying Clinton is a "good" candidate either. I'm saying don't throw your vote away on your own self importance, and that there is no point in even voting for a third party in a non-swing state since no one will care but you. It's possible for non-swing states to become swing states if enough people vote and vote for one of the two major parties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
I love how I defend voting Republican yet I'm a Dem shill  I edited my first post since people take umbrage with not voting demo. Fine if you like the Republican platform, whatever. I at least respect that more than voting third party. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:They're also too stupid to understand their third party candidate will never, ever be president in a first past the post system, if they even know what that is. Noam Chomsky posted:If you don't think the government has been much more "progressive" - which is an empty term
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
The major problem with throwing your vote away is and will remain you deciding your ideals are more important than other people's suffering. You can argue that you want to signal a shift in politics but in doing so you're choosing to support a never-happens in favor of potential incremental progress. It's a fundamentally selfish viewpoint taken almost universally by people who have the luxury of not having t worry about their basic human rights being taken away. It also bothers me because inevitable it boils down to "I'm voting for the people who REALLY match my ideals" while ignoring that not actually being a serious party means they don't have to actively implement those ideals. So rather than pushing towards a goal it's going "I will only accept the perfect and screw everyone else." If you genuinely, honestly, wholeheartedly believe a third party is right then you should vote for them. But that means believing they can actually implement what they discuss and actually do what they say. if you vote for them because they sound good but have no ideas, well, yeah. That's dumb. It's the equivalent of voting for the guy who says he'll give you free candy and pony rides if he wins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:Hey, I asked you a question, if you're going to quote me, at least answer my question instead of making dumb assertions that can't possibly be supported. People only started calling themselves Progressive because Liberal became a dirty word thanks to Right Wing Media. I already answered your question numerous times. Voting third party is absolutely pointless in any state since no one cares about your meaningless protest vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The major problem with throwing your vote away is and will remain you deciding your ideals are more important than other people's suffering. You can argue that you want to signal a shift in politics but in doing so you're choosing to support a never-happens in favor of potential incremental progress. It's a fundamentally selfish viewpoint taken almost universally by people who have the luxury of not having t worry about their basic human rights being taken away. Also it shows a general ignorance of government, that, were the third party candidate to win, anyone else in the organs of government would work with them, despite barely working with Obama.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:People only started calling themselves Progressive because Liberal became a dirty word thanks to Right Wing Media. quote:I already answered your question numerous times. Voting third party is absolutely pointless in any state since no one cares about your meaningless protest vote. twodot posted:Clinton will never win Idaho, and Clinton has no real local presence in whatever district of Idaho we want to choose, is voting for Clinton in district X of Idaho stupid?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:I'm not saying Clinton is a "good" candidate either. I'm saying don't throw your vote away on your own self importance, and that there is no point in even voting for a third party in a non-swing state since no one will care but you. It's possible for non-swing states to become swing states if enough people vote and vote for one of the two major parties. In a non-swing state your vote matters in a different way. If democrats see themselves losing grip on a state traditionally blue they are more likely to change message and run different candidates. If instead they see their numbers going up, up, up! they won't ever change at all. I'll say it again, as someone who has been active in local politics and also always casts a ballot on all the things, my experience is that if you're just going through and marking (D) chances are that (D) is going to be working against whatever it is you're trying to achieve. The biggest best example I know of because I worked on it was the $15 minimum wage in Seattle. Democratic mayor, democratic city council, except for one socialist. Only two city council members for raising the minimum wage. In the end there was a compromise that is good, but by the time its fully phased in $15 will be inadequate to live on in Seattle. And the only reason the democratic politicians in Seattle caved was because we could have taken it to the ballot instead. By you're own argument though you're essentially agreeing with my basic argument which was that a vote, for any candidate is never thrown away or 'a waste'. In a swing state your vote actually matters even if it is for a third party candidate, your vote matters a lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
K Prime posted:In a first-past-the-post system for a single decision there will only ever be two viable options at most. Whoever gets the most votes wins, so whoever forms the biggest voting bloc wins, so if one group gets big enough the only possible viable response is an equally large group. FPTP does not nesecarily squeeze out third parties, look at Canada in the 60s and 70s or the UK at the height of the IPP's power during the Home Rule crisis's. Yes its more uncommon for a third party to be significantly organised at a constituency level to win a straight horse race but it has happened and can happen edit: actually never mind I read that post wrong kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:52
|
|
