• OBJECTION!
    link
    fedilink
    56 months ago

    No. If a third party gets, say 5%, it tells the candidate that they could potentially pick up that 5% by moving closer to that party’s positions.

    Voting reform is great. It also goes directly against the self-interest of both major parties so they will only ever support it if they believe they have to in order to win.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      66 months ago

      That seems like an over-simplified or even naive example. Like, a candidate moving their platform has just as much chance to lose 5% of their base as it does picking up those third party votes.

      Also, realistically, there isn’t one singular thing that people vote third party for - there’s lots of little “one things” that particular individuals vote third party over, so it’s a more difficult matter than simply “moving closer to those party’s positions” - it’s going out and figuring out what exact positions those votes left you for and trying to incorporate them piecemeal into your platform, all in a way that maintains your current base, or at least gains you more votes than you lose…

      IDK man, I don’t see the draw there. Surely it’s much easier to find that 5% in centrists or undecided voters, rather than the very principled people that decide to vote third party.

      • OBJECTION!
        link
        fedilink
        76 months ago

        Ok then, if they believe they can win without me and people like me, then they can go right ahead. But I’d better not hear anyone blame the left when the democrats move right and lose.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          46 months ago

          I won’t be blaming the left. I’ll be blaming a lack of voting reform, because I don’t think voting for a third party is an effective solution.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      36 months ago

      Getting 5% is also important because it qualifies the party to get millions of dollars in federal grant money.