🏳️🌈🖖🏽
I remember the 2000 Election. There were enough votes for Ralph Nader to hand the election to George W. Bush.
I remember the 2016 Election. There were enough votes for Jill Stein to hand the election to Donald Trump.
In 2024 the Green Party is running Cornell West. Let’s not repeat this history, friends
Your vote is not a marriage. You’re not choosing a life partner. It’s a chess move for what’s best for the country and the world.
🇳🇱
Thats a very short sighted view... the way I see it getting a higher vote count for third parties, gives people hope third parties can win, and can break the 2-party system if that trend is carried out... breaking the two-party system is a FAR more promising goal than it is to have one of two shitty people picked year after year to run this country.
It also increases the likelihood that no candidate will gain 270 electoral votes in the case of the Presidential.
For that case, I recommend we follow the constitution and vote for electors, NOT presidential candidates. As it is, you have to work pretty hard to even know the name of the electors you are voting for. They are not put on the ballot. It is well worth meeting them.
@sdgathman @ambihelical @freemo @georgetakei RCV isn't impractical, and in fact has been implemented in several places including Alaska and Maine.
I like it because it would allow us to answer a question that can't be answered under plurality: did your third party lose because (a) a large number support you but were afraid to waste their votes, or (b) your views are only held by a small number of voters.
If by "voting for more than 1" you mean approval voting, I'd be okay with that, too. Also STAR voting. Any are better than plurality, but RCV seems to have the most momentum.
RCV allows for third parties support to just become more visible, and can counter-act thepsychology component of the 2-party myth... So it can fix the problem, but is only needed because the myth exists at all.
@freemo @sdgathman @georgetakei @peterdrake Tactical voting is not due to a myth or poor decisions but people being practical and realizing that if they vote for the best (in their opinion) candidate that is polling poorly or otherwise unpopular they could be helping the devil (in their opinion) candidate get the win. It’s a rational choice given the system.
@peterdrake @sdgathman @freemo @georgetakei seems like a straw man to say the other two choices are always evil. Usually the choice is between a mediocre choice and a bad choice. If you see both as equally bad then it’s no longer logical to not vote for your preferred candidate. I see Biden as mediocre and most republicans in the current crop as bad. You seem to see it differently.
@sdgathman @freemo @peterdrake @georgetakei
I keep hearing this from more conservative circles, but have yet to see anything other than occasional forgetfulness, and his usual talking too much and the foot-in-mouth disease which he's always had. Nothing approaching senility. Feel free to supply the evidence though, happy to be educated. I think it's mainly the cherry-picking that both sides do. There's plenty of video where Trump is slurring words, misspeaking and has motor skill issues. I don't think any of this necessarily means either is incompetent.
@ambihelical
Its a psychological myth because its based on a perceived advantage that isnt an advantage at all, and thus doesnt exist.
If people beleive this myth then they pool their resources to get someone elected that is evil and abuses them, they didnt win anything at all.
When the belief isnt believed in by the people then you have no coalitions and the most moral and best person wins, since people vote for who is best, not who is popular.
@sdgathman @georgetakei @peterdrake