I have one outstanding order that is already out for delivery. Once I get that, I’m closing my amazon account. I’m done. Buy nothing. Vote with your wallet. Edit: account is closed. get bent Bozos.
I have one outstanding order that is already out for delivery. Once I get that, I’m closing my amazon account. I’m done. Buy nothing. Vote with your wallet. Edit: account is closed. get bent Bozos.
Voting third party in a two party horse race is a fool’s errand. Especially if you voted for known Putin stooge Jill Stein, who was only running to steal away votes from Kamala Harris. She knew she didn’t stand a chance at winning.
Voting “third” party only fails because the great mass of fucking morons who insist on voting for the genocidal, global empire terrorist pieces of shit currently in charge. You can try as hard as you want to deflect that blame, but it will never wash off.
I like your sentiment, but a two party system inherently uses third party votes as spoilers. It is common for the dominate party to support a third party to peel away votes from their major opposition.
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=6y_K1yvlvDPNxm70
One solution to this is ranked voting. Of course many of our politicians recognize this and have already passed laws at the state level to bar ranked voting under the pretense that it is too confusing for voters.
Nailed it - I’ll consider a 3rd party vote on equal-footing once we have ranked/ranked choice voting in place. Right now, I think there’s a higher probability for one of the two parties to consider this so in other words… it’s going to be a while…
Whatever party is in power has a lot to lose from ranked voting and nothing to gain. This will make this reform very hard to pass. I live in Alaska and we have ranked voting that narrowly avoided a repeal this last year after passing the previous year.
There is no legal enshrinement of a “two party system”. Whoever the public votes for wins. The public’s self-defeating mentality is the problem.
Not explicitly. Just effectively. Between first past the post, which naturally evolves into a two party system. And the electoral college which enshrines it. At the national level actual, independent 3rd parties are an impossibility. And they know it.
Theoretically matter could spontaneously coalesce into a Boltzmann brain before a 3rd party could win a national election.
this isn’t true.
FPTP doesn’t naturally evolve into a two-party system. Cultural predispositions cause that. The electoral college does not enshrine it, it - sometimes - hands the elector votes to the majority winner of the state, and some states even have legal pledges to follow other systems. There is no impossibility. I will repeat myself for the fiftieth time in this thread, THE PUBLIC’S SELF-DEFEATING MENTALITY IS THE PROBLEM. The public TELLS ITSELF a third party is an impossibility, the public DOESN’T VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY. You will resign yourselves to slavery until you figure this out.
Duvegers law and people who actually study poly sci disagree. And I’m more inclined to believe someone with evidence and proof over someone like yourself. Who has nothing, spouting magical thinking BS.
“Duverger’s Law” (you misspelled it) is a principle, not some deterministic physical law. I studied polisci at college, thanks. Read your own link. First sentence - “TEND to emerge”. Not “always emerge”. There’s an entire section in the article named “Exceptions”. One of those exceptions is IN the U.S. Learn the difference between “tendencies” and “absolutely certain physical laws”, this is basic logic/math.
This kind of sloppy thinking is so common in the U.S., I swear to god, this is exactly what I’m talking about with the shitty education system kneecapping the democracy.
duverger’s law is no law, at all. it’s an undisprovable tautology.
Well, those morons genuinely support those things. A quarter of voters is not winning an FTTP election
What’s the point of voting for a 3rd party when they have no members in Congress or the courts? They’d have to coalition with Republicans or Democrats anyways.
Exactly, it’s not like the president has all power (at least not yet, we’ll see where it is in a couple years). Without supporting members of the other branches, a third party president is nearly useless. That said, I’d take a useless but well meaning president over Trump.
^ This speaks to a lack of civics education. Without an overwhelming majority, Congress can’t pass harmful legislation with an executive veto, and the executive can still halt its implementation.
Gridlock is better than streamlined totalitarianism. Vote for them in both. And courts weren’t really partisan before ~2010.
With a “First Past The Post, Winner Takes All”-system like you have in the US, there’s virtually no chance of a third party winning an election, as the majority of the country haven’t even heard of your candidate, and thus won’t vote for it.
And then still, once you get your third party elected president, then what? They’ll have to make huge compromises on their campaign promises in order to get anything done in Congress.
The public choosing to vote for a different party wins in a FPTP system regardless. The obstacle is the public.
Voting third party this election directly lead to a Trump win. “You can try as hard as you want to deflect that blame, but it will never wash off.”
if everyone who voted for a so-called third party had voted for the democrat, trump still would have won.
Only in terms of “but this would have happened if you voted for something else”, the logic of which equally applies to the sum of Harris voters voting for somebody who, simultaneously, (a) had substantially less votes in the final outcome, but also (b) was so extremely evil that they’re complicit in a genocide. Or is that too hard for you to wrap your head around.