🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@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

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

@mike805 While I am not sure we would agree on what interest groups deserve support I do tend to agree that even the groups that DO deserve support tend to be in tantrum mode.. in fact right now 100% of everyone and everything with any attachment to politics of any kind is just in a perptual tantrum... Tantrums work right now for damn near everything and on both sides of the aisle... its getting tired.

@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

@adhdeanasl

Nope, Chase Oliver.. Only way I would be voting for Trump is if I voted for Harris.

@CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews

@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

@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

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.

@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.

@Stanman

Nothing remotely american about a two party system except the stupidity to believe it is real.

@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

@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.

@Stanman

I never once said I would only vote for the perfect canddidate. None of the candidates are perfect, if that were the case I wouldnt be voting.

No, my line in the sand is simple, I wont vote for an evil person or vote in a way that perpetuates a two party system (which itself is evil and fascist in its nature).

Those parties can change, but it usually requires some sort of cataclysm first.

The two main parties int he USA have flipped 8 times in the history of the USA. In those 8 times every single time the new party that became a majority party had very little (~1% support) the year before.

The only thing that is real about the 2-party system is that it gives the illusion of a two party system because the parties change abruptly and the vote doesnt tend to reflect actual support.

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

Since your axiom is false so is your conclusion. You also are under the mistaken impression that a vote that happens to be for the winner somehow has more value. Being right doesnt have any value add to your vote.

If someone is committed to voting third party, my only response is: What the fuck?

Thats basically my response whenever someone says their voting one of the major two parties. Sounds like they should be in a straight jacket its so outlandish.

@Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews