@freemo I see your point, and I don't really disagree with it at all. I think it is definitely possible for the parties to change. I just think with the system we have in place there is a pressure towards the two party system, and I don't believe it's due to a flawed narrative on the part of the voters, but there is the notion of win-ability for every candidate. I'm sure every voter who votes wants their candidate to win. Do you think it is inaccurate or even wrong for a voter to try and imagine what others will vote all things being equal? If there is a weak enough presence of a third party then could it be safely assumed they don't have a chance? Maybe I am out of the loop in this one too, but honestly I have seen practically no campaign from either front runner in the US, let alone from a third party. I am sure Corona is the major cause of that, but would it be wrong for me to assume that a third party isn't winnable in this election?
And that's what I meant by you have to play each election in the context of only itself. Yes new parties have come up in US history, but it's still always devolved into a two-party system. Usually when the new party came up it usurped another raining party for a longer period of time. So I'm not against the party's changing, and their ideals with them, but I think you might have to take a look at the specific election and see if a vote to a third party would even mean anything in that election.
Is this flawed thinking too? I'm not saying you can't campaign for a third party, or even push for social change through other ways, you mentioned Congress which could be one great way for a third-party candidate to get in. You can assume less people will make the safer vote and really judge the draw for each candidate. Just from my vantage point, it seems to me a third party would need more supporters to ever become a president. That's not beyond the realm of reality, it's just not our current reality.
@freemo So I believe I understand your point. Of the premises you give, I personally subscribe to #1 as well, so I am personally fine just discussing from that premise.
I want to say I do see your point with looking at it as a feeling of obligation, and I want to say I by no means mean it that way. In addition I believe the argument is not that they have a very small chance of winning, but instead the voting system, specifically of the US itself is flawed, and I believe this is where a lot of the difficulty in voting third party comes from. The design of the voting system itself causes a third party to become irrelevant. For a more in depth explanation as to how take a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
but essentially having a winner take all system with only one priority of vote causes two general parties to evolve which, whenever challenged with another party, would only cause the completely ideally opposed party to come out on top with a victory. See Ross Perot's run for president for evidence of this happening on an actual election scale.
Back to the point of obligation. It is not because they are most popular, but sadly due to the system itself that a vote other than the main two would be the actual opposite of what is desired. It creates a system of strategic voting with choosing 'the better of two evils' so that the person you agree the least with doesn't win.
Now I am not saying this is an unfixable problem or that each election is the same. This most definitely could be fixed with a better voting system. Of what I am not sure, but there are better ways to do things that I believe is worth exploring.
And I by no means am saying that the premise of any party splitting is not a possibility, it most definitely is, and as you said almost happened with the last election. (I am not that great at history but I am pretty sure it has happened in the US's past as well.) With that possibility, each election has to be taken as they come, you cannot really predict into the future and say that the only two parties are going to be the Democrats and Republicans, but I personally feel like if they keep the winner takes all method you can predict there will only be two parties, with maybe brief stints otherwise. But at that point who cares if the names changed. The two party system is so absurdly built so as no one can get exactly what they want and they have to vote for people they really do not agree with in order to help make sure someone they agree with even less does not get a seat of power.
@freemo First off I want to apologize if this is impolite, I just joined and I still really don't understand how everything works. I have seen many posts by you and I appreciate your thoughts and I would just love to get your perspective.
I want to say thank you for your mindset and not being focused on parts that have nothing to do with the conversation. There is one thing I would love for you to expound on if you feel willing.
A while ago you made a post about voting third party and arguments against don't make sense. But I want to ask how you rationalize this in a first past the post system? While I must succumb to say taking a passive role in life means you technically are having the moral high ground, since you could be advocating for a person that is the least evil out of all people, if you take a look at the perspective of your actual output in life by means of choices and their power, does that not start to falter?
Quite honestly assuming a vote means anything individually is sort of nonsense to begin with with how many people vote, but couldn't it be argued that a vote for a third party means even less than two in the system that we have? Wouldn't effort be better spent changing the system in order to have third part votes mean something? And in the meantime make a vote where your power decreases the amount of evil in the future?
Am I wrong in my thinking for this? I would very much appreciate your perspective. Thank you for your time and I wish you a nice day.
@caranmegil no problem (:
@caranmegil thetrove.net has it I believe
