🇳🇱
Remember a vote for third party is avote for ::checks notes:: whoever you dont want to win apparently.
Funny how it changes based on whoever will convince you most to support a 2-party system. Nah the most important vote is one against a 2-party system.
the duopoly sucks but they are mostly right. in competitive states.
consider something small like when do we have the block party and two dates are getting most of the votes and either is likely. if you prefer one date over the other, but really want a date nobody else does, it makes sense to change your vote to the one of the two you prefer.
but we really need the Alaska model everywhere.
https://time.com/6112318/american-democracy-final-five-voting/
consider something small like when do we have the block party and two dates are getting most of the votes and either is likely
And this is where you actually disprove the two party system.
Obviously if you have a regular style vote (first past the post) and two choices are highly favored then you will have a two party system. But as you just pointed out it requires the axiom that you have 2 highly favored choices (not 10, not 1).
So really all you are saying is that when there is a 2 party system (2 parties are very likely to win) then you have a 2 party system…. Says nothing about us inherently having a 2 party system.
in fact the fact that we have seent he 2 favored parties change a total of 8 times in US history while the current voting system remained inplace disproves the idea of a two-party system
I dont know how much sense it makes... Two popular candidates who are both evil make no sense to vote for when you can vote for someone who is not evil.
Why would I feel better about voting someone I hate who happens to win than voting for someone I like who doesnt? voting for someone you dont want, simply because they are more likely to win makes little sense to me.
voting is not about emotions (or identity as some now focus on). it's purely strategic. if you actually have zero preference, fine. vote third party etc.
but if you think one would be better and you can influence that, play the hand you're dealt. till we can make small changes like in the article and get a better system, and ultimately, a better politics. less divisive, candidates more about integrity and fixing shared problems than serving party/donor/ideological interests.
@wjmaggos Nah thats self-defeating logic. voting to eat slightly less wet shit because you think it might be marginally less disgusting than the wetter pile of shit is a really really bad way to apply strategy. If everyone thinks that way everyone eats shit. If everyone uses actual logic and votes for what is best, then you wind up getting something better.
but until that happens, we all eat wetter shit. the nice part is you can feel all superior about standing up for your principles while doing it.
@wjmaggos Except the only reaason it happens at all is because everyone is suckered in by the fallacy in the first place.
The parties have literally told a lie that convinced everyone to vote for them despite everyone admiting no one really wants them, they are just the lesser of two evils.
@freemo
I think we agree. change is possible. but as an individual voting in a given election in a purple state when it doesn't look like a third party candidate has a chance, it makes sense to go with who you prefer of the two.
but our system is ultimately designed to be independent of parties, unlike parliamentary systems. if we want parties to have less influence in bigger races, what they did in Alaska is our best option cause it would work well to break party influence and has momentum.