If you have no preference between a self avowed dictator and a milquetoast politician, I question if your head is roundish or if there’s a large flat spot where part of your head was caved in.

Because you can’t be naturally so stupid to be ambivalent to the country falling to a fascist who wants to genocide multiple groups, can you?

The question is do you have a preference in being able to express potential future preferences?

As bad as it has been, the R team went absurdly beyond in late 2020 with respect to refusing to recognize the result of an election, trying to use fake electors, by pushing to reject the certification of the electors, and a lot of people campaigning for board of elections to “ensure Republican victories”.

They are openly working to establish a China-like system where there’s only one viable “party”.

There is no assumption on my part about a preference between two candidates.

I’m not going to PMs, you can have this conversation in public.

The worst way to convince Biden to stop a genocide is to promise you’ll vote for him no matter what.

And the worst way to stop genocide is to let the ‘finish the job’ candidate win.

Don’t pull that virtue signalling bullshit with me, I’ve had this conversation with genocide enablers many times. I hate what Biden is doing, but I’m not stupid enough to think that virtue signalling will do anything to help the people that trump wants to murder at home and abroad.

With people who advocate courses of action that will only exacerbate the one topic they virtue signal about? Absolutely.

If you cared about genocide you’d be trying to lessen it overall, not virtue signal on the Internet.

Its a mistake with no real world upside.

Voting third party is the ultimate virtue signaling.

I understand you THINK that is the case. You do not understand first-past-the-post voting, you don’t understand electoral college, you don’t understand the mentality of the MAJORITY of out-of-touch voters that don’t even know what left and right mean. You lack the information needed to effectively champion your alleged cause and you are so bad at it that you are making enemies of the people that would rather stand with you in changing the system so we DO have third parties and your “solution” isn’t just an ignorant person’s pipedream.

The way our system works. You not voting means you voted for whoever ends up winning. GJ

In lieu of a better candidate, it makes sense to vote for the least worst one available, since one of those two will be the next president.

And the best way to end genocide is to do nothing. Because history is full of examples where doing nothing created change.

Right?

Better vote trump, then?

How do you plan to push Biden on anything if you let trump win, you donut

Sorry, new Lemmy refugee from reddit here… .ml?

You haven’t answered my question. I bet you can’t, and won’t. You’ll continue to spew your (il)logical fallacies and do nothing more than pollute any meaningful conversation with your bullshit rhetoric. Go back to Reddit where you belong. The adults are talking here.

bOtH siDeS!

I draw the line at genocide. Not voting for bombing babies, sorry.

Note that “third party” isn’t automatically better, given these third parties. I wager a Green Party minded person would be incensed if libertarians won, for example.

I’ll also say that the current crop of third party candidates are impractically minded, so they wouldn’t be the sorts of folks I’d want in charge anyway.

However, if they became a viable path to office (ranked choice voting), I bet they’d get better quality candidates running with them instead of compromising and running as D or R.

I keep saying it but it is one big Prisoner’s Dilemma. The best next steps that can realistically happen are

We vote in grandpa Joe.

All these folks that are single issue Democrats FIGHT AND CHANGE THE SYSTEM. If you are an actual leftist, or just a Democrat, set the field for a fight you can actually win, instead of handing it to trump then fighting uphill with cement shoes. If it is a narrow miss, you have something to point at and go “look how bad we need third party options and a system that enables them!”

(funfact, part 2 can not happen under he other guy) Losing the whole fight because you want everything to be perfect overnight is pathetic. Causes move slow nomatter how much the spastic activist brain wants everything perfect and right now. You also don’t bring anyone to your cause by being toxic about it.

The problem is first-past-the-post always leads to strategic voting, which leads to eliminating 3rd parties. And, once you have only 2 viable parties, they benefit immensely from FPTP, so they’re unlikely to ever get rid of it.

Unfortunately, game theory was invented in the 1940s, and the USA was invented in the 1770s, so the founding fathers couldn’t make use of game theory to work out a good electoral system. Oh, and having to compromise with the slave-holding states and devising an electoral system that gave them power turns out to have had bad effects down the line. Who knew!?

The impact of third parties on American politics extends far beyond their capacity to attract votes. Minor parties, historically, have been a source of important policy innovations. Women’s suffrage, the graduated income tax, and the direct election of senators, to name a few, were all issues that third parties espoused first.

• Rosenstone, Behr and Lazarus

Change the voting system

Then

Change the representation system

Agree. But I don’t see anyone disrupting the status quo (let’s face it, Bernie is mint but old, AOC is mint but young, I’d get behind Newsom or Whitmer but I feel like they are grand because of my own bias) . I’ll take that pest over that cholera in the meantime.