That’s not how American voting works, if everyone voted for who they think is absolute best, the group with the most unity wins, which is exactly why political parties exist.
Yes, Unity. That is what I’m referring to. It just seems voters are only worried about being on the “winning” side and that is their Unity - winning and not what is best for them.
Sorry, I’m just saying that if people all voted for a 3rd party candidate that wanted govt out of their pockets and personal life things would be so much better than just voting to win or voting for the lesser of two evils.
Does that make sense? Not sure if I’m articulating my thought well enough.
The problem is everyone voting for a third party candidate at the national level is pratically impossible, including the fact that you have to convince people that the candidate is popular enough to even be worth voting for.
It’s and endless and unfortunately unavoidable cycle.
You vote to win in almost all cases. That’s how US elections work.
Sounds like sad and defeated outlook on voting. I think all that we can do is try and inform voters on third party options and hopefully things will change.
Unfortunately, this is how Trump wins. However, one could argue letting the dnc lose could also result in them bringing on more candidates that appeal to younger and much more progressive voters.
I just think that most people would like to have Government out of their wallet and personal lives. If those people all voted for a candidate who wanted the same, then change could happen.
And there’s little to no historical precedent for people spontaneously uniting around a third party candidate. There is, OTOH, precedent for the spoiler effect causing an unpopular candidate to win.
Exactly; you don’t understand basic game theory. The options you lay out are not in fact part of the equation. If we’re playing a game in which you have only two choices, opting for a third make-believe alternative is going to result in a losing outcome every time.
It’s voting for less evil. And staying home is an extra vote for more evil.
But I promise, get the frustration. We live in a fucked up system that filters out good candidates.
Nope, vote based on your values. If everyone did that, you wouldn’t have to settle for evil.
That’s not how American voting works, if everyone voted for who they think is absolute best, the group with the most unity wins, which is exactly why political parties exist.
Yes, Unity. That is what I’m referring to. It just seems voters are only worried about being on the “winning” side and that is their Unity - winning and not what is best for them.
If you could rephrase this that would be great
Sorry, I’m just saying that if people all voted for a 3rd party candidate that wanted govt out of their pockets and personal life things would be so much better than just voting to win or voting for the lesser of two evils. Does that make sense? Not sure if I’m articulating my thought well enough.
The problem is everyone voting for a third party candidate at the national level is pratically impossible, including the fact that you have to convince people that the candidate is popular enough to even be worth voting for.
It’s and endless and unfortunately unavoidable cycle.
You vote to win in almost all cases. That’s how US elections work.
Sounds like sad and defeated outlook on voting. I think all that we can do is try and inform voters on third party options and hopefully things will change.
Unfortunately, this is how Trump wins. However, one could argue letting the dnc lose could also result in them bringing on more candidates that appeal to younger and much more progressive voters.
A plan that depends on everyone spontaneously deciding to do what you think is best is no plan at all.
I just think that most people would like to have Government out of their wallet and personal lives. If those people all voted for a candidate who wanted the same, then change could happen.
Most people aren’t libertarians.
And there’s little to no historical precedent for people spontaneously uniting around a third party candidate. There is, OTOH, precedent for the spoiler effect causing an unpopular candidate to win.
Most people do not realize they are Libertarian.
You obviously don’t understand basic game theory.
I just think if people would look at what they value, find a matching candidate, vote for said candidate; things would be less of a shits show.
Exactly; you don’t understand basic game theory. The options you lay out are not in fact part of the equation. If we’re playing a game in which you have only two choices, opting for a third make-believe alternative is going to result in a losing outcome every time.
Are your values based around helping the worst of two evils get in power? Because it sure sounds like it.
There it is. Fear Voting.