People will, in a single breath, tell people to exercise their right to vote in democracy and also that voting for the person/party that best represents them is wrong if it’s not a Big Party.
Thanks for your input, but it is not a question about who benefits or what a person aught to do, but a simple logical conclusion:
For simplicities’ sake, let’s say there are 10 people voting in an election with 2 parties. Each party has 4 unwavering loyalists and the remaining 2 people’s votes depend on current events/issues. The two parties mainly take turns in government due to these swing voters.
Now enter a third party. Party 3 addresses issues that are somewhat relevant to voters of party 2 and mostly uninteresting to voters of party 1. In the next election, some voters will most likely drift from party 2 to party 3:
Party 1: 5 Votes
Party 2: 3 Votes
Party 3: 2 Votes
Splitting votes between too somewhat similar parties guarantees a win for the opposite party on the spectrum. Coalitions are not possible under first past the post, so party 2 and 3 teaming up to dethrone party 1 is not an option. This continues until either another party on the opposite end of the spectrum joins the race and diminishes the votes for party 1 or one of party 2 or 3 absorbs the other.
Therefore, it is in the voter’s best interest to vote strategically against what they don’t want and not for what they do want.
Usually in a democracy the people are represented by parties which they align most with. In my country I can vote for one of seven, which get proportionally represented by a number of seats in parliament. The winning party rarely has more than 50% of the vote, if they do, all the losing parties will become the opposition, and if they don’t they have to combine with another party to have at least 50% of the votes. This assures that the winning party or coalition still has to negotiate their position and decisions every single day. If one party would want the power the current administration in the US has they would probably need 80 or 90% of the votes.
Is it complicated? Yes. Does it make sure the people are represented? Also yes.
In the US if a state votes 51% one way, 100% of the electoral votes go to that party, causing a reality where a party could get less than a majority vote and still win. This alone is proof that the people are not fairly represented and isn’t a fair democracy. In local elections you’ll have a much more nuanced choice but at a federal level it’s antiquated to say the least.
I will say that in a fair democracy, you should vote for your representative, in the US you have no such choice. Be it by living in one state counts as more than another, or the fact that a third party has little to no representation post election.
Just as a side note, those models are not invulnerable to manipulation. In my country it’s the same, but the central government is ruling from one of the flimsiest coalition governments, with the same lack of power that goes along that dumbasses still claim they are solely responsible for. The opposition claims they ‘won’ because they got more votes than any other party (which should have also made it easier for them to form their coalition and they weren’t able to) and now it is getting so bad and stupid (and troll factory brigaded) that people getting convinced by the rhetoric are trying to pass off the US electoral system as a success story.
It provides more representation, but it does not provide infallibility. I think we have the technology today to do considerably better than what we had several centuries back - in fact, to a large extent we could be voting ourselves on key issues instead of letting it fall back to representatives and false promises if we wanted to. The biggest problem isn’t that people in a democracy aren’t on equal grounds when grasping different issues and yet they can be radicalized to vote out of rhetoric more than those who would and should be more informed. I think we could have better democracies if we shifted to meritocracies, where you could vote on issues only if you certify you were more informed and the history, reality, and minutiae that govern those issues through exams. But that would also create a system that could be gamed.
Any system can be corrupt, and in democracies it’s not just the political candidates but society as a whole when it becomes complacent, ignorant, yet loud and willing to break the system for those that manipulate then into doing it.
Yea, and I would never claim it’s perfect, there are no perfect systems. But one of the most powerful nations being that vulnerable to manipulation is something to witness.
Yeah, that’s right. You have the freedom to make bad choices and the government can’t stop you. But other people can still make fun of you. People calling you dumb because of your bad decisions isn’t a violation of your rights.
That was my first presidential election. Naive year 2000 me thought “Oh wow this is a huge obvious problem, and Australia already fixed it! It’ll be a part of the Democratic platform by 2004.”
To this day, I vote for any Democrat who supports ranked choice voting (or any clone-independent voting system).
What are you asking? If third party voters want to contest all congressional seats? Or if there is a third party candidate who contested congressional seats?
No matter what you are asking, what party are you asking about? 3rd party isn’t a party itself, there are no general 3rd party beliefs and actions. Are you asking about the libertarian party, the largest third party by registered voters? Or the Green Party who had Jill Stein take the most 3rd party votes this year? Or some other party?
You’re right, but voting third-party for presidency and your own states’ congressmen are not mutually exclusive. You may vote third-party for both.
Even without a supporting legislative branch, a third-party president may have influence through vetoes alone. Presidential vetoes on bills have historically had high success rates to get congressional bills denied. There is also always the off-chance that something like H.R.5140 gets passed, and a lot of politically relevant seats become available for a third-party president to assign bodies into without question. Not likely, but nothing will ever even have the chance to change if you continue to vote for the primary two parties
“i’m oppressed because of my political opinions” grow the hell up. oppression is when people target you for something about yourself you can’t change. oppression because of political views is just people telling you you’re an asshole and you refusing to listen
3rd party voters didn’t swing a single swing state. That is a demonstrable fact. It’s time to stop punching down.
People will, in a single breath, tell people to exercise their right to vote in democracy and also that voting for the person/party that best represents them is wrong if it’s not a Big Party.
The issue in the US is that it IS against your political interests to vote for anyone but the least bad option.
The first past the post system simply doesn’t allow for a diverse political landscape.
deleted by creator
Thanks for your input, but it is not a question about who benefits or what a person aught to do, but a simple logical conclusion:
For simplicities’ sake, let’s say there are 10 people voting in an election with 2 parties. Each party has 4 unwavering loyalists and the remaining 2 people’s votes depend on current events/issues. The two parties mainly take turns in government due to these swing voters.
Now enter a third party. Party 3 addresses issues that are somewhat relevant to voters of party 2 and mostly uninteresting to voters of party 1. In the next election, some voters will most likely drift from party 2 to party 3:
Splitting votes between too somewhat similar parties guarantees a win for the opposite party on the spectrum. Coalitions are not possible under first past the post, so party 2 and 3 teaming up to dethrone party 1 is not an option. This continues until either another party on the opposite end of the spectrum joins the race and diminishes the votes for party 1 or one of party 2 or 3 absorbs the other.
Therefore, it is in the voter’s best interest to vote strategically against what they don’t want and not for what they do want.
Usually in a democracy the people are represented by parties which they align most with. In my country I can vote for one of seven, which get proportionally represented by a number of seats in parliament. The winning party rarely has more than 50% of the vote, if they do, all the losing parties will become the opposition, and if they don’t they have to combine with another party to have at least 50% of the votes. This assures that the winning party or coalition still has to negotiate their position and decisions every single day. If one party would want the power the current administration in the US has they would probably need 80 or 90% of the votes.
Is it complicated? Yes. Does it make sure the people are represented? Also yes.
In the US if a state votes 51% one way, 100% of the electoral votes go to that party, causing a reality where a party could get less than a majority vote and still win. This alone is proof that the people are not fairly represented and isn’t a fair democracy. In local elections you’ll have a much more nuanced choice but at a federal level it’s antiquated to say the least.
I will say that in a fair democracy, you should vote for your representative, in the US you have no such choice. Be it by living in one state counts as more than another, or the fact that a third party has little to no representation post election.
Just as a side note, those models are not invulnerable to manipulation. In my country it’s the same, but the central government is ruling from one of the flimsiest coalition governments, with the same lack of power that goes along that dumbasses still claim they are solely responsible for. The opposition claims they ‘won’ because they got more votes than any other party (which should have also made it easier for them to form their coalition and they weren’t able to) and now it is getting so bad and stupid (and troll factory brigaded) that people getting convinced by the rhetoric are trying to pass off the US electoral system as a success story.
It provides more representation, but it does not provide infallibility. I think we have the technology today to do considerably better than what we had several centuries back - in fact, to a large extent we could be voting ourselves on key issues instead of letting it fall back to representatives and false promises if we wanted to. The biggest problem isn’t that people in a democracy aren’t on equal grounds when grasping different issues and yet they can be radicalized to vote out of rhetoric more than those who would and should be more informed. I think we could have better democracies if we shifted to meritocracies, where you could vote on issues only if you certify you were more informed and the history, reality, and minutiae that govern those issues through exams. But that would also create a system that could be gamed.
Any system can be corrupt, and in democracies it’s not just the political candidates but society as a whole when it becomes complacent, ignorant, yet loud and willing to break the system for those that manipulate then into doing it.
Yea, and I would never claim it’s perfect, there are no perfect systems. But one of the most powerful nations being that vulnerable to manipulation is something to witness.
Yeah, that’s right. You have the freedom to make bad choices and the government can’t stop you. But other people can still make fun of you. People calling you dumb because of your bad decisions isn’t a violation of your rights.
Voting in your best interests is dumb, and people should mock you for it. Got it.
It doesn’t matter who you vote for, just go vote.
Yeah it does. Don’t vote for Nazis
Corrected. Your vote doesn’t count if you vote for Nazis. Don’t be a literal Hitler.
In 2000 they 100% did and we’re still paying for that shit.
That was my first presidential election. Naive year 2000 me thought “Oh wow this is a huge obvious problem, and Australia already fixed it! It’ll be a part of the Democratic platform by 2004.”
To this day, I vote for any Democrat who supports ranked choice voting (or any clone-independent voting system).
The problem isn’t that people voted for Jill Stein. The problem is not enough people voted for Jill Stein.
The left is so broken in this country that we can’t even get a candidate to 5%! And yet, we’re supposed to stop Trump?
You know what 5% of the electorate could do?
Ensure the GOP loses every general election and participate in primaries to move the Dems to the left.
That’s how you make change in our system. Not by throwing away votes.
People have been trying to move the Dems to the left for decades, and look at what we have now.
They’ve been trying by bitching about the party every couple years when the primaries they don’t participate in select the wrong candidates.
I’m gonna love it when all your guys excuses run out and you’re finally going to have to answer to yourselves.
I won’t care then though. I’ll probably be in a camp somewhere. but I’ll be thinking of you all 😶 alot.
Rofl, victim complex much? “Punching down” like you’re some repressed minority for having shitty prioritization skills. Jfc
Third party voters are in fact a repressed minority
They are the minority
And their beliefs are repressed with constant anti-third party voting sentiments
So working to change this situation, 3rd parties contested every house and senate seat. Right?
What are you asking? If third party voters want to contest all congressional seats? Or if there is a third party candidate who contested congressional seats?
No matter what you are asking, what party are you asking about? 3rd party isn’t a party itself, there are no general 3rd party beliefs and actions. Are you asking about the libertarian party, the largest third party by registered voters? Or the Green Party who had Jill Stein take the most 3rd party votes this year? Or some other party?
You want change. But a president alone cannot achieve that. A president needs house and senate support.
By building a mandate in these two chambers, 3rd party’s can start to drive change. But only if they contest the seats.
You’re right, but voting third-party for presidency and your own states’ congressmen are not mutually exclusive. You may vote third-party for both.
Even without a supporting legislative branch, a third-party president may have influence through vetoes alone. Presidential vetoes on bills have historically had high success rates to get congressional bills denied. There is also always the off-chance that something like H.R.5140 gets passed, and a lot of politically relevant seats become available for a third-party president to assign bodies into without question. Not likely, but nothing will ever even have the chance to change if you continue to vote for the primary two parties
I agree with your premises.
But without contesting house and senate seats, we’ll…
This couldn’t have been cornier if you’d said it’s harder to come out as conservative nowadays than as gay. Do better.
Say something of substance
“i’m oppressed because of my political opinions” grow the hell up. oppression is when people target you for something about yourself you can’t change. oppression because of political views is just people telling you you’re an asshole and you refusing to listen
Nobody said oppressed. Repressed. The word is repressed, as in all beliefs that don’t fall in line with the two primary parties are repressed.
are your beliefs being repressed? or are people just telling you not to waste your vote and risk a trump victory?
no self respecting leftist will shut up about how you can’t vote your way out of fascism and you need to be doing more. come on. do better.
Any self-respecting leftist can see that voting is a civic duty. If you can’t even vote for your interests at the ballot box, you’ve failed democracy.
Right, because alternative candidates definitely aren’t discriminated against as far as ballot access or getting into debates or…
did you even read my comment?
Dont you know?
The people who say they dont want to support genocide but actively choose the worst of the genocide-related options are the real victims here.
Did any Trump voters actually say “genocide”? The ones I’ve met call it “the war”.