๐ณ๐ฑ
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.
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 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.
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 the most important vote is the one that throws a wrench into the nomination process
@realcaseyrollins voting during the primaries is going to be a much better choice when it comes to change for sure.
I think most of us vote on issues. The biggest issue I vote for is whatever vote I feel is most likely to destroy the view of a two party system. If that is your primary goal than a third-party vote seems clear.
@freemo I vote primarily based on who supports the smallest form of government, the least amount of spending, and is the most willing to ban abortion
Really? I usually lean towards the candidate that wants to kill the **most** babies... interesting take.
@freemo I used to have more demands but then realized most candidates have trouble fulfilling even these.
Itโs always โwar war war spend spend spend regulate regulate regulateโ with these people. And anyone outside those bounds are an โextremistโ.
Like, looking at the #GOP, the only one whoโs treated as reasonable wants the #USA to join the #Israel #Hamas war and start war with #Iran as well, and track all social media use, effectively banning anonymous Internet accounts. Itโs crazy!
โA government so small it can fit in your bedroom.โ ๐
Not sure what that means, but I wish (not the bedroom part but the small part).
@freemo @realcaseyrollins
โA government so small it can legislation morality of a woman.โ
I mean thats the whole point of most laws, to legislate morality on people, that includes woman's issues and mens.
That isnt to say that abortion doesnt deserve debate, it does. But no one should be shocked that it is legislating morality, thats the whole point.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins
Thatโs a lot of words to say youโll never face that moral decision, isnโt it? ๐คจ
Never said or claimed I would... but then again I'll never be in the moral decision to murder someone either, yet i still have (and am not ashamed to have) an opinion on if murder should be illegal. Its almost like being the victim is more important than being the perpetrator when it comes to having an opinion... that said ya know what I have been? A fetus.
as a #GirlDad, I learned that when a human baby girl is born, she is born with all the ova she will ever have.
The patriarchy insists on #PartusSequiturVentrem because men are fragile about their seed.
Yes they are, but no that is a rather absurd take IMO... People care about life being murdered, their seed may play a minor role in feeling they have a right to defend that life they helped create, sure, but its hardly the primary factor if anyone is being honest (which seems like you may not be but rather trying to push an agenda with whatever rehtporic you can muster).
I mean hell your not even against a particular stance (since I clearly stated the stance is debatable) you seem to care more about taking away peoples right to voice an opinion despite being the victim of any such decision (as we were all fetuses once). That is a disapointing stance to take to say the least.
Brah, I followed yโall because I like stimulation of people I disagree with, but the level of intellectual masturbation is too gross for me, so Iโve fixed that glitch.
Cheers and enjoy the Fediverse ๐ซก
He followed me at some point, but I never followed back. I usually follow anyone who debates respectfully and productively. But he just never made the cut.
Now he thinks im going to loose sleep cause he unfollowed me. Like bro, thanks for saving me the time so I didnt need to mute ya for being toxic and making no effort to have a constructive conversation.
@realcaseyrollins Hahaha! apparently he thinks he is the center of everyones universe.
A few minutes ago i love how he announces to us he is unfollowing us and I'm just like "Wait who even are you?".... like was I supposed to care, I didnt even realize he was following me.
He clearly thinks he is way more important to other people than he is.
bonifartius ๐ผ๐
@freemo @realcaseyrollins
> He clearly thinks he is way more important to other people than he is.
he says men don't know about and can't have an opinion about issues of women while using his daughter as leverage in an argument..
Haha good point. Men cant have opinions, says a man, as he makes his opinion clear on the issue in the same breath.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins but his comments reminded me of that technically part of one already was born by ones grandmother as the mothers egg cells already were present there :)
Dude you spent every reply engaging in mental masterbation and "gotchas" without a single iota of constructive discussion.
Trust me, you did us a favor, I was willing to give you, like most people the benefit of the doubt, but you clearly didnt deserve that.
@freemo Well, if you can convince me that the 3rd party pulls 27% of the Republicans and 27% of the Democrats, I'll go along for the ride. But I don't know how you would convince me of that though.
@Pjcoyle Cant imagine why you would need to be convinced of it.
If we were voting on what to eat for dinner, and the top two choices are wet shit and slightly less wet shit, are you going to vote for one of the wet shits or you going to vote for the pasta?
I'd vote for the pasta for one reason, my top concern would be to not eat shit. So even if i thought my vote would loose I'd still vote for it just to strengthen the third party vote so allt he morons voting for shit despite no one liking shit, might realize there is a chance for something other than shit even if it lost last election but happened to get a higher percentage than it might normally, giving hope for future elections.
Seems completely idiotic to just in unison go "lets all vote for shit cause its what everyone did last time". when really your just taking the same idiotic logic everyone else took which is the **only** reason the logic plays out.
@freemo But this isn't making choices for my dinner. It is contributing to the decision on who gets a chance to destroy civilization. If a third-party has no chance to win then a vote for the TP, no matter how symbolic (and I have played the symboic game a time or two) is the same as not voting.
@freemo
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/