@louis ITs a fairly common argument when people come in with the two-party nonsense

@freemo True, but many of your arguments fall apart with Oliver, since supporting him is also somehow supporting a party that actively hates him and almost everything he stands for.

@louis

When did I state that was my issue with the democrats. My issue with the democrats is who they ellect, I couldnt care less about their opinions beyond that. Same for the blue, when I first became old enough to vote was the Obama election. I voted for Obama and when he murdered that 16 year old us citizen with no due process I deeply regreted my choice. That was the last time I ever voted blue.

I stopped voting for the democrats first and foremost due to the evil nature of every single candidate they ever bring forward as a candidate. Secondarily I stopped because of the behavior of the members of the public who consider themselves party supporters and how they treat others, which is deplorable.

@freemo Yeah, I was referring more in the context of your claim in the above linked thread:
> two ways your individual vote makes a difference 1) if it changes the numbers enough as to make people think int he future something (like a third party win) is more possible

In that sense, supporting Oliver would have the expected effect of bolstering the LP, despite the LP basically being MAGA at this point.

FWIW, I'm a big fan of Oliver himself too. I'd vote for him if he stood a real chance.

@louis

> In that sense, supporting Oliver would have the expected effect of bolstering the LP, despite the LP basically being MAGA at this point.

Huh, no if a third party gets a larger vote then the two main parties get a smaller one. Trump's % support would go **down** not up by voting for anyone that isnt trump.

@freemo Maybe I was unclear. I'm saying that the LP's leadership has the same values and ethos as Trump's GOP. Hence why they're smearing their own candidate for being gay. So, voting for the LP pushes MAGA ideals because the LP espouses MAGA ideals since the Mises takeover.

@louis I havent seen any attacks from the LP leadership itself on chase. Though that said I dont doubt there are some members that do that. Again I vote for the quality of candidate based on their actions, I dont vote for parties.

I am against the red and blue parties simply because they are so far gone they have no home of ever presenting me with a candidate that I could ever vote for and not loose sleep. But if Chase Oliver happened to be the democratic choice id still vote for him.

@freemo Okay, so let me ask you this: What exactly do you wish to accomplish by casting your vote for Chase Oliver?

@louis

I wish to accomplish a few things.

1) To never feel responsible again for the murder of an innocent like I did for voting for Obama.

2) to show increased numbers of support for third-party candidates so people will feel they are a more viable option in the future.

#1 is the big one though, a vote is me giving power to someone or something, which makes me responsible for the consequences of such a decision.

@freemo Also, sidebar: The Libertarian Party is run by traaaash now. Here's receipts:

The leader of the party has endorse Oliver... but only to help get Trump elected: https://mastodon.social/@fakertarians/112554694716492550

Here is, recently, the leader of the party endorsing three different Republicans for president: https://mastodon.social/@fakertarians/112809550717188574

And, most egregiously, here is the CA branch of the party's leading caucus posting that "Chase fucks kids" before claiming to be hacked: https://mastodon.social/@fakertarians/112847954647925722

@louis

Like I said, I vote for the best person on the ballot, I dont vote for parties. My vote would be the same if Chase was a democrat or an independent.

@freemo @louis believe me, it's a common argument here in germany with more than 5 parties having a substantial vote. if you vote for something else you are "throwing your vote away".

regarding people throwing a fit:
i think what happens is that people identify very strongly with certain parties that criticizing these parties is an attack at their ego. i believe that this happens more for progressive parties, as those often use emotional arguments (like "end of democracy"). at least much more often than conservatives.

@bonifartius

So in germany what is a throw away vote, anyone who votes for something other than the 5 main ones? lol

@louis

@freemo @louis depending on who you ask, yes. it's essentially the same argument as in the US: if you vote for some small party which lands below 5% (which are excluded from the bundestag) you weaken the "good" big parties which aren't AfD so you strengthen AfD who are evil nazis who will end democracy.

always reminds me of the famous osho quote: "Government by the people, of the people, for the people... but the people are retarded."

@bonifartius @freemo Here in the US, our system is literally built in such a way that there can only really ever be two competitive parties at any given time. Those parties can change, but it usually requires some sort of cataclysm first.

So, voting outside of those two parties really, truly is nothing but performative.

If someone is committed to voting the opposite party as mine: Fine, we disagree, no problem.
If someone is committed to voting third party, my only response is: What the fuck?

@louis @freemo
well, if everyone votes in a two party system because they think others do as well, it likely will stay a two party system :)

i believe voting like this does act against the idea of democracy. the idea was to vote for things people personally want - not making a game theory problem out of it.

@bonifartius @freemo It's not a problem of wishful thinking; it's a problem of constitutional reform.

Our system is built to incentivize coalition building until only two parties remain. Those coalitions regularly shift, but there will only ever be two without a change to the system itself.

@louis @freemo sure, if things get seperated into opposition and government you'll always have two groups.

@bonifartius @freemo I don't think that's true, here, though. Because power regularly transitions back and forth between the two powers. Neither is the established government or opposition.

@louis

The USA has switched which 2 parties are the majority parties 8 times in the history of the USA.. Its been a while, but the democrats and republicans just happen to be the most recent major parties, they werent always the dominate ones.

@bonifartius

@louis @freemo
here in germany (and i believe other places) you have x parties and after the vote a subset of them decides to enter a coalition for the legislative period. which makes them the government and all other parties the opposition.

@bonifartius @freemo Yeah, not here. Here, there's only one round and that round is for two single heavyweights. So, everybody plugged-in picks their sides around primary time and everybody else picks their side just before the actual election.

@louis

There are about 40 countries that use FPTP voting in its pure form.. and about 25 more countries that use it in a mixed form with other methods.

Oddly those 40 countries despite using FPTP just like the USA do not tend to have 2-party systems... because its a myth. America is only different because it gives the illusion i described earlier which is only because people buy the myth at all. In these other 40 countries though because that myth isnt really one that is "sold" you dont get the 2-party system you get here.

@bonifartius

@freemo @bonifartius Can you cite that claim? My understanding is that these other countries typically have parliamentary systems, which are far more conducive to more parties.

@louis

I do not have a source for that.

But regardless of if their parlimentary not sure how that would change the 2-party system effect when voting for the members of parliment. If a FPTP truely created a 2-party system we would see their parliments filled with members of only 2 parties.

@bonifartius

@freemo @bonifartius No, because FPTP only applies to the top ticket in America (i.e. the Electoral College). Down-ballot, third parties are vastly more competitive.

In a parliamentary system, the parliament usually chooses the head of state, not the general populace. So, since the population isn't forced into coalitions for the top of the ticket, they're able to vote more locally for their MP who then votes for the HoS. That allows more parties and gradual transitions and power shifts.

@louis @bonifartius

> No, because FPTP only applies to the top ticket in America (i.e. the Electoral College). Down-ballot, third parties are vastly more competitive.

That doesnt match with the reality. In the USA our congress is almost entierly two parties.In fact you get third parties becoming president (those 8 examples I mentioned) **more often** then you get a third party in congress. But since congress has more people you will always have one or two in there while that is true.

The claim is that FPTP voting is why congress is a 2 party system just as much logic attempting to explain the presidency. Yet it only actually works that way in the USA.

@louis

Except the two party system is still an illusion. When support for the three parties is 34%, 34%, 32% then the actual vote will result in 51%, 48% and 1%.. but the second the "real" support passes that threshold you will see an immediate and shart ~50% flip in votes. In other words, the system appears to be two party but it still ultimately will follow the underlying "real support", thus there is no two party system, not really.

This is why every time the parties have switched the new dominant party had ~1% voting support the previous year despite a sudden shift.. this happened 7 out of the 8 times a party has switched.

@bonifartius

@freemo @bonifartius Right, and that's consistent with what I said earlier:
> our system is literally built in such a way that there can only really ever be two competitive parties at any given time. Those parties can change, but it usually requires some sort of cataclysm first.

But the piece you're missing is that there's no path to a smooth transition from 3% to 32%. Those shifts are almost always abrupt, and they are often not bloodless.

@louis

The 3% to majority shift has happened virtually overnight "smoothly" in most past elections. In fact, I am unaware of any blood shed... People just eventually say enough and once support passes the threshold it flips. In almost every case though its largely bloodless and organic as far as I know.

@bonifartius

@bonifartius @freemo @louis

If you have some estimate of likely results (in the form of a probability distribution over vote counts -- likely you'd assume an uncorrelated multivariate Gaussian or something similar), then it's fair to say that you can estimate the direct effect of your vote: compute the probability (as a function of what vote you cast) that your vote will be the deciding one, and pick the vote where you like that distribution the most.

In places that have a threshold this usually means voting for a party that has a significant chance of being above the threshold, sadly. Apart from this it often doesn't align with voting for larger parties (nor even, in FPTP, parties that are very likely to get at least one seat in your constituency: voting for a party that's expected to be just below 1 seat is better than for a part that's expected to be above 1 and well below 2, if you like both equally).

@robryk @freemo @louis
> compute the probability (as a function of what vote you cast) that your vote will be the deciding one, and pick the vote where you like that distribution the most.

i'm not really good at math, but my gut feel says that this would get really interesting if everyone did this :)

@bonifartius @freemo @louis

Yup, and there's no good way to handle "everyone is taking into account how the system works", because if there were, the resulting system would break the Arrow's impossibility theorem.

A colleague of mine btw did write up a computation of that kind for most recent parliamentary elections in Poland, but the point there was mostly to compare voting in different constituencies (you may vote in any constituency in those elections, as long as you actually arrange for that slightly ahead of time and appear in a voting location in that constituency).

@robryk @freemo @louis
> Arrow's impossibility theorem.

that's interesting!