They can worry about the spoiler effect… Or they can worry about the massive amount of people who don’t vote because they feel it’s pointless or barely muster enough care to do it.
The fact that these experienced politicians whose judgment you appear to trust, have both decided to work within the existing system should probably sway your opinion of what the optimal strategy is at least a bit more.
There are usually two parties because the game-theoretic dynamic of this electoral system has a significant channelizing effect on the likeliest outcomes. Once you’ve accepted that reality, the (admittedly unsatisfying) optimal strategy becomes apparent.
I say this all with zero rancor - I do not like these arguments either, but the logic of it is difficult to see past. I would prefer the system be overthrown entirely but, and this is key, you go into the revolution with the populace that exists - and they’re going to have their own ideas for what comes next. I’m not so sure I’d like what they bring to the table.
The fact that these experienced politicians whose judgment you appear to trust, have both decided to work within the existing system should probably sway your opinion of what the optimal strategy is at least a bit more.
I like them but would I don’t think I would consider them that successful in respective of their peers. This system is literally against them being successful.
That’s so.
A career in politics hasn’t attracted much high quality talent in general, I think they’d be more successful if there was more of a sense of politics being a good option for good people. It mainly attracts scum these days.
“You don’t vote” is what Democrats say to anyone they don’t want to listen to, regardless of whether they actually vote.
Democrats need to listen to people who vote.
But the person I replied to said they also need to worry about nonvoters. They don’t. Nonvoters don’t matter.
