• Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    No, that’s not it at all. The glaring issue is that the 3rd party candidates have ZERO chance of winning the presidency. None, zilch, nada. Comprendez? Simply put, they almost certainly aren’t on enough state ballots to get the required 270 EC votes, but even if they did they wouldn’t even come close.

    And I’m sorry, you’re saying people that vote for the only 2 plausible candidates are evil? Sounds like trying to justify crashing planes to me.

    • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      Stein is on enough ballots to get way past 270. But voters cling to their oligarch bread crumbs too tightly to do the right thing. Their biggest fear is losing those bread crumbs

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        But voters cling to their oligarch bread crumbs too tightly to do the right thing.

        Yeah that’s called the spoiler effect. The spoiler effect hurts 3rd party candidates too.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Good thing I’m not a liberal, and I have hard mathmatical evidence. Here it is!

            Total voters: 1214
            52% of voters approved of the results.
            
            cocina - 626 votes - WINNER
            owen - 588 votes
            

            Total voters: 1214
            48% of voters approved of the results.
            
            owen - 585 votes - WINNER
            room - 317 votes
            cocina - 312 votes
            

            These two randomly generated elections are identical, with the exception that the second election has a newly introduced candidate, who is irrelevant.* Yet despite their irrelevance, their introduction has changed the outcome of the election. That means this is a failed electoral system, and this is what people are talking about when they talk about the spoiler effect, as per the definition:

            In social choice theory and politics, the spoiler effect refers to a situation where a large group of like-minded voters split their votes among multiple candidates, which can affect the result of an election by allowing a candidate with a smaller base of support to win with a plurality. If a major candidate is perceived to have lost an election because a more minor candidate pulled votes away from them, the minor candidate is called a spoiler candidate and the major candidate is said to have been spoiled. This phenomenon is also called vote splitting.

            * Irrelevent meaning they had no chance of winning. In the second election, the voters colored lime green and light blue would never have voted for the new purple candidate, because the lime green and blue candidates were closer. So telling those voters to “quit voting for the establishment, vote with your heart” is meaningless, because that’s already what they’re doing, they’re just voting for whoever is closest to them.

            • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              That is based on the assumption that a 3rd party voter would vote for a right wing duopoly party to begin with if there were no 3rd party options. We would likely leave that box empty and vote down ballot or simply not vote at all.

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                That is based on the assumption that a 3rd party voter would vote for a right wing duopoly party to begin with if there were no 3rd party options.

                Not really. It’s the subset of voters that have an effect on the votes of the doupoly candidates, and 3rd party voters who would never vote for the doupoly candidates by definition aren’t in that subset to begin with.

                Zooming out/accounting for voters abstaining doesn’t actually change anything:

                Election report for election "Plurality 2 Candidates"
                Total people: 1047
                11% of people supported the winner.
                
                Kruger - 112 votes - WINNER
                Sahl - 111 votes
                

                Election report for election "Plurality 3 Candidates"
                Total people: 1047
                10% of people supported the winner.
                
                Sahl - 109 votes - WINNER
                Kruger - 93 votes
                Maikol - 91 votes
                

                The overwhelming majority of Maikol’s votes came from voters who didn’t vote for the preexisting duopoly. However Maikol’s entrance into the race was enough to split the vote with Kruger, causing the election to be won by Sahl.

                The math is the same math, it still shows the spoiler effect.

                  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    That just kicks the can down the road instead of actually solving it. The spoiler effect is still there.

                    And you should be especially motivated to remove the spoiler effect from our electoral systems, since it is in large part what is stopping your 3rd party from being successful. Everybody should be able to vote for who they most like, without having to worry about the spoiler effect.

          • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I liked Ralph Nader. I voted for him. George Bush barely won that election, and then started the “global war on terror”, instituted the PATRIOT act, etc.

            I learned.

    • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      2 months ago

      The glaring issue is that the 3rd party candidates have ZERO chance of winning the presidency.

      Because of all the bullies saying that and pressuring people to vote for their fav candidate.

      • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s another form of voter suppression, decades of people being told their votes do not matter is why we have 100 million people that do not vote. because they know that the two choices currently in government do not represent their needs, and they will not support those that ignore their needs.

        • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s another form of voter suppression, decades of people being told their votes do not matter is why we have 100 million people that do not vote.

          Exactly!