🇳🇱
@freemo The significance of a vote for a candidate that cannot win is zero.
So, a vote for one of the main parties is, by definition, more significant, even if it's literally one in a hundred million.
> The significance of a vote for a candidate that cannot win is zero.
That isnt the reality, and is a oversimplification to game the system.
You can argue it has a much LOWER chance of winning. but not 0... Based on historical data the chance of a third-party candidate winning an election or coming in second place (and thus becoming a primary party in the future) in any one year is ~7% , something like 3% for the chance of actually winning.
That isnt 0, it is low. But pushing for something with a low chance, that is far better for everyone, and having 50x the impact in doing so Is a very good trade IMO.
Also, what is the point of voting for a primary candidate when your chance of your vote having **any** meaning at all is 0.00000001%.. not voting would have no impact of any kind, so why bother, where voting third party has a 50x impact and even when loosing that impact has quantifiable gains (unlike with the major party).
@freemo That 3% is an average driven entirely by major outliers. The bottom line is, without the right combination of external conditions in place, the possibility of a third party finishing first in a FPTP system is effectively zero.
Primaries have different systems, but those that are FPTP do have the exact same dynamics I described above.
> That 3% is an average driven entirely by major outliers.
So? Its still the reality chance of it happening, 0 is not. Full stop.
> The bottom line is, without the right combination of external conditions in place, the possibility of a third party finishing first in a FPTP system is effectively zero.
Yup, and the chance of those conditions existing in any one year, and you personally making a significant impact to allow that to happen is statistically **hugely** more likely if you vote for a third party than a primary. Primary the chance of your vote making a difference is many orders of magnitude lower than when voting for a third party.
So again regardless of who wins, why would anyone bother to vote for a third party when their vote makes no difference at all? When with a third party it does, at many orders of magnitude higher. Isnt the point of voting to make a positive difference?
@freemo
> So? Its still the reality chance of it happening, 0 is not. Full stop.
In a vacuum, sure. But in the real world, we can look around and see that those external factors are not present this year.
> Isnt the point of voting to make a positive difference?
No, it's to reduce harm. And by throwing away your vote for an impossible candidate, you give up your opportunity to reduce harm.
@LouisIngenthron Incorrect.. in fact not only are the factors present (a great deal of dissasifaction with major parties, and each party acting acts its majorieis primary ideals and interests)... but more importantly as I've covered before third-party take overs always happen suddenly and unexpectedly. They were **always** <1% support before the election and switch to a majority support over the course of only a single election.
> No, it's to reduce harm. And by throwing away your vote for an impossible candidate, you give up your opportunity to reduce harm.
How can you reduce harm if your vote has absolutely no impact on the outcome of any kind? Cant reduce harm if your screaming into the wind doing nothing.
@freemo Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that every time a party has ascended in such a fashion, it had already established its viability by establishing a number of wins in downballot elections, right (or it was just a reformation of a previously proven-viable party).
I don't think that any have come out of nowhere to win, like they'd have to this year.
>How can you reduce harm if your vote has absolutely no impact on the outcome of any kind? Cant reduce harm if your screaming into the wind doing nothing.
But it does have impact. My vote is one of many that determine where the electoral votes go. Therefore, voting against the greater harm is a moral imperative, and the most effective way to do so is to vote for the only other viable candidate.
@LouisIngenthron Nope not at all. For example the bull moose party (also called progressive party but seperate from democrats) replaced republicans for one election as the second major party. They had no representation at the time in congress or presidential, yet in one election they took over majority from republicans and began winning congress with no prior support.
This is the one example of a third party that disapeared shortly after. Other parties hiwever with a similar pattern in the past took over and kept control pushi g out one of tbe two main parties.
What your missing is FPTP voting makes it haplen this way, take kvver happens abruptly with no warning and shoots to majority almost overnigght. This is due to coalition effects.
@freemo FWIW, my comments above apply *only* to electoral college votes.
When it comes to congressional seats or other downballot elections, a third party vote is *much* more viable and is not a throwaway.
Id argue the opposite. Once its actually possible to win your vote means less since your part of a larger majority and thus your vote is a smaller percentage and smaller effect.
You have more impact supporting small parties unlikely to win than supporting larger parties more likely to win.
@freemo If the party is unlikely to win, but a win is *viable*, then I'd agree with you.
The key is not whether they have *any* chance, but a *viable* chance. A viable chance may be worth betting on. But a vote for a nonviable candidate is a waste, imo.
@LouisIngenthron @freemo So, by definition, if the major parties are not ok, the world is doomed and nothing should be done?
When Stalin and Hitler are up for election make sure you keep voting for Stalin, its the only way to make things better!
@freemo @LouisIngenthron Absolutely. Had the better moustache!
The world is doomed? Yeah, pretty much.
Nothing should be done? Absolutely not. You should vote for the one of the two that you believe will lead to the least harm.
@LouisIngenthron Little problem here: i am not a us citizen.
Even if i was: i fefuse to go along with the proposed unsatisfying options. If all options are unsatisfying, i evaluate if the one proposing is ethically viable. Maybe not, maybe that person is an enemy. It does happen, sometimes people are just against me, or the concept of me existing. Not wanting that to be does not change its existence.
Going to bed now, would love to hear more from you tomorrow.
@admitsWrongIfProven Unfortunately, the unsatisfying outcomes are coming whether you choose them or not. That limits your options to opt-out.
And the "one proposing" in this case is... us. Like most systems that try to govern large groups of humans, there is *no good system* (at least, that we know of), so we chose the least bad one, and that's what we've got so far to deal with.
So, I believe, that any moral human would act on their morality by doing what little is possible to reduce the harm, even the tiniest bit, by choosing the slightly less worse viable option.
@LouisIngenthron I do make a difference between unwanted outcomes i had a hand in bringing on and ones where i am free of any involvement.
It's like the horror movie trope of "do what i say or it's your fault if the hostage gets it". This is wrong, it's always the fault of the one doing, not who they extort.
@admitsWrongIfProven Right, but government is us. We're the ones who are doing *and* the ones who are extorted.
Which is why it's important that we act responsibly in the former role when voting.
@LouisIngenthron From what i heard about gerrymandering, it seems a bit doubtful if i would feel represented if i was a us citizen.
Beyond such technical issues, i would point out that there is such a thing as propaganda. Even in a country where democracy itself is flawless (not here in germany), there are factors that take away from election results as a perfect expression of the peoples will.
So yes, one should be responsible, but in the end there will always be people manipulated into voting against their interests. The responsibility goes further than individual voters.
A system that presents two bad choices as the only valid ones does massively take away from the possibilities voters should ethically have.
@admitsWrongIfProven I don't disagree with that, but the alternatives aren't any better. We see how well a parliamentary system works for the UK. They have more than two parties and yet they still Brexited against their best interests.
@LouisIngenthron Yes, Brexit is a good example. There was a lot of emotion in what was advertized as reasons for the decision, not much actual engagement with the issues that would arise from a brexit.
A democratic decision can only be as good as the information available - or as bad as the propaganda that successfully influences people.
@LouisIngenthron @freemo So my relatives who live in states where polls say Biden has no better chance of winning than a third party candidate should vote for Trump because "The significance of a vote for a candidate that cannot win is zero"?
@antares No, of course not, but they also don't necessarily need to leave the house to vote for Biden if he doesn't stand a chance there anyway.
@LouisIngenthron then I claim that anyone not living in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia or Nevada has an obligation to vote their preference as their vote will have zero effect on the outcome of the election. It is only the people in those swing states where more than one candidate has any real chance of winning where voters even need to consider voting strategically.
@antares Yeah, that's a solid point. I'm not sure I could go that route, but I certainly couldn't fault anyone else for choosing to do so.
@LouisIngenthron @freemo You are basically saying if the general environment says something, you cannot even try to resist.
There is always the option to renounce the powers that hold you, to deny their righteousness.
The narrative told is not automatically true. Sometimes, you just live in a world of lies. Embrace it. Call the people attacking you enemies. They cannot do any worse to you than they already do.
@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo No, I'm saying the system for presidential election that we've got imposes these limits that I describe.
None of what I've said here applies to downballot elections, where third parties do stand a chance and can be reasonably voted for.
And that's the only reasonable path I see for a third party... to get a groundswell of local offices long before a successful presidential run.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron close races don't always happen but they're not that uncommon either. Cook County IL is still waiting to find out the winner of the State's Attorney primary that's basically going to decide the next office holder. There are regularly significant races won by a single vote both in primaries and in general elections, and in many places 'safe' districts mean that the primary is what decides things.
Name a single **presidential** race where a single vote from anyone ever in the USA has made a difference in the outcome? That has literally never happened and statistically if the USA lasted for ever that would never happen, the universe would probably die of heat death first.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron presidential races aren't all that matters, and you'd need a race that was close enough electorally that a single state flipping would flip the electoral college AND where any of the states with enough electoral votes were very close.
I can give you one example you should be well aware of with a *very* slim margin (that ended up not mattering because of other highly questionable decisions). Want to take a guess first?
@freemo @LouisIngenthron Not to forget gerrymandering. So sorry to see what you have to deal with.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron You do realize you are arguing for anarchy and human cooperation here? Over people having power over others?
Agreeing would mean just that, only talking to each other free of any state or authority could help.
Anarchy as a distilled idea would not have voting. I think you are thinking of libertarianism not anarchy.
Yes I realize I lean most strongly towards libertarianism.
Human cooperation is just a fancy word for democracy, which I also approve.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron Libertarianism is strongly coopted by people trying to earn profit, not cooperate. Democracy is strongly coopted by people that are good at manipulating others.
The question of cooperation is if people can communicate freely. That is currently not the case. You do need to account for manipulation.
And anarchy is a slim slice of the topic, if an important one. It is often coopted by aggressive people, no aggression is ever anarchist. Just an excuse, then. Who works together with no force compelling, that is anarchist. If the force compelling arises, that is when anarchy breaks down and humans revert to their animal selves.
@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo There's a difference between libertarianism with a small 'l' that stands for small government that works for everyone, and Libertarians with a big 'L' that are just far-right authoritarian stooges who took over the national party.
@LouisIngenthron @freemo Hard to tell those apart...
@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo Actually, it's pretty easy. Just ask if they believe in an age of consent. 😂
So true, the party is loony tunes, the principles not too horrible for many things
@freemo @LouisIngenthron @admitsWrongIfProven It only seems crazy because it would be actual freedom and jerking it to Regan. Legalize all drugs, full auto, no ATF and abortions available on demand.
If I'm a man and can stand my ground, my woman should be able to stand her ground by having an abortion too. The world doesn't need more people like me and to have to put up with the horror of carrying that is inhumane.
A Driver's License should include motorcycles by default. The DCMA should go away. Religious marriages shouldn't be respected, it was likely coerced. Vaccine mandates shouldn't exist, let people die how they want. Having sex with a patient should be okay, it doesn't get much safer than that.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron @admitsWrongIfProven It would be nice to try a secretary out before hiring too but that just sounds sexist and creepy as hell. Unless the genders are swapped, it is not tolerable in modern society.
@AmpBenzScientist @freemo @admitsWrongIfProven I personally recommend all new hires get hired into a 1 month probation period.
Most companies will fire you after that time if you're not performing well enough, so giving that period a name and letting them know the stakes up front is just good business.
@LouisIngenthron @freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Personally I don't see why that doesn't replace the interview. An interview at a previous job involved wiping and writing an image to a computer lab. Yes it was rather simple but it was through the network.
Hiring individuals as independent contractors could make it less intimidating. It's not an option everywhere but it looks better than a probationary period on a resume. A contract just doesn't get renewed, it also doesn't imply fault and makes for an easier clean up.
These are common practices in the industry and they have names. Using contracting as a probationary period for hire is called "contract to hire"
@freemo @LouisIngenthron @admitsWrongIfProven Well we need to rename these things to something better to soften the blow of the minor issue of the doors coming off during operation. It's restructuring and a move towards compliance with the regulatory bodies. We will all be getting raises and reducing cost while protecting our image.
We keep this company afloat or in the air. It doesn't matter what we make. WE make the money. 7075 is just Aluminum right? If we were to recycle beer cans, we would be seen as Green and save a lot of money.
@LouisIngenthron
I would say the same about voting for a major party. In not a single election would your vote have changed the outcome, ever. So why do it?
Moreover, if we just look at the significance of your vote, you are a larger percentage of the vote when voting for a third party than when voting for a primary party. Something on the order of 50x **more** impactful when voting for a third party than a primary party in percentage of the vote you account for.
Moreover while not winning or winning for a primary has little effect from your vote, with a third party even loosing has a positive outcome. By swinging the % higher (which you do wtih 50x more effect) you are sending a message even when you loose by raising the % enabling third-party more likely access, exposure, and chance to win in the future.