voiceofchris @ voiceofchris @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

51

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well, don't get me wrong, a WIN for a 3rd party IS the ultimate goal. But change happens slowly in politics and in life. Slow and steady support for a three party system will eventually result in that end. Continued support for a two party system, by contrast, never will. I, myself, will continue to place votes for the better of those two eventualities.

I don't understand your response. I asked why we are assuming these voters prefer Harris over Trump and you responded by saying that their preference for Harris is irrelevant, because they don't want Trump.

This doesn't make any sense.

"don't want Trump" in this context MUST equate to a preference for Harris over Trump. And my whole question is "why are we assuming these voters hold that preference?"

That would be fine, if that's what was happening, but it's not. The commentor that i responded to, as well as the article that we are all responding to, use this "hypothetical" situation where third party voters all prefer Harris over Trump to justify a chastisement of those third party votes. There is no basis for this assumption presented in the article or within the comments in this thread.

E: added the word "be" to the 1st sentence.

Who said that a single win for a third party candidate would be the death knell of the two party system?

My personal goal is to vote for the candidate who best reflects my values. Always. In every election. At every level. If everyone did this tomorrow we'd be in a much better situation. Obviously that is unrealistic. But so is asking those who vote their heart to compromise their values by voting for a different candidate just because they have a chance of winning. The goal here IS slow generation change. By all means given to us.

"for the sake of protest votes" Not everyone sees a vote for a third party as a "protest vote". Some see it as a real investment now for a better future for the country.

The points you raise do sound troubling, don't they? But can you remeber an election in the last 25 years where letting the "wrong guy" win wasn't posed as the single worst thing possible. The things you mention are bad, yes, but they are also no different than the alarmist rallying cries that have been used every 4 years for the last.. forever.

And why is everyone assuming that all of the third party voters would be Harris voters if they were forced to choose between the two main candidates? This is where the logic goes south. It assumes that the third party voters are some homogenous bloc of disenfranchised "not Trump" voters.

In this scenario, why are we assuming that the 25% that are voting third party would prefer Harris over Trump?

And a generation from now we will still be in a shitty two party system if everyone keeps voting for "the lesser of two evils."

E: spelling

This article is the most logically corrupt piece of statist drivel i have read today. "No, no, don't vote for who you feel best represent your values. Instead, pretend like everyone else who shares those values is going to team up and vote for the same one of the two people they dislike." Because, in essence, the "logic" used in this article only works if you assume that all of the third party voters are pulling from one candidate.

I mean, you are correct, it was not two fish. But is 64 fish some sort of good sample size?
Follow up question: does this type of thing accumulate in small fish and then concentrate in larger and larger fish?

The unbearable weight of massive talent, with Nic Cage.

Night & Day, with Tom Cruise.