🇳🇱
@freemo Why even leave the house to vote then?
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.
@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.
@LouisIngenthron @freemo So, by definition, if the major parties are not ok, the world is doomed and nothing should be done?
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.
@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 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.