vinniep
I understand your viewpoint, but don’t subscribe. Voting isn’t about supporting a system. The system exists, with or without your participation. Shy of a full blown civil war (which is more likely to make this worse than better), the only way to change the system is to use the system to change itself. The general election in November every 4 years is the last stage of a long process that starts with local parties and elections, weaves through the primary process, and culminates on election day. We need more people that are dissatisfied with the candidates to get more involved, not less, and to go to the early phases where a smaller number of active participants can have an outsized impact on the whole system. To me, one of the many alternative voting systems would be a huge improvement (I have preferences, but honestly just about every one of them is better than the First Past the Post system we use), so advocating for that and supporting local candidates that can push those ideas forward is where my energies go.
Both parties actively try to give voters from the other party reasons to be dissatisfied and disengaged. Don’t play into it.
Also
If enough people stop treating third parties like a wasted vote,
People might if any of the third parties had a serious candidate and a serious governing platform. Each of them is fundamentally flawed in one way or another, and a few of them are flawed from top to bottom. I get that you’re dissatisfied with the status quo, but which one of these 3rd parties would be able to actually govern and not make a complete and utter mess of everything? Could you imagine if one of the major 3rd parties actually won? It would be an unmitigated disaster.
Unfortunately, that means that you’re taking a vote away from the candidate from the two main parties that is closest to your views, which helps the candidate you oppose the most.
The two party system is truly problematic, but when it comes to November you have two options currently and voting for a 3rd party has the same impact as not voting at all. Voting for the candidate that you oppose the least lets you put a finger on the scale to at least try to avoid the worst possible outcome relative to your beliefs and values.
I absolutely agree, but you’re talking about a situation where we already have 10 different ways and 20 EC2 instances. When you get to that point (or start approaching it), yeah, do the complex thing - no argument at all. The challenge is to wait until the last responsible moment to make that pivot and to not dive deeper into the complexity than you need at the current time and place. I’ve worked with countless small companies and teams in the past that have created whole K8s clusters, Terraform provisioning plans, and the whole kit for a single low volume service because “we’ll need it when things scale out later” and later never arrives.
This is great until
I think that’s the point. Don’t jump to the complex right away. Keep it simple and compose the capabilities you have readily available until you need to become more complex. When the task requires it, yeah, do the complex thing, but keep the simplicity mandate in mind and only add the new complexity that you need. You can get pretty far with the simple, and what about all of the situations where that future pivot or growth never happens?
The philosophy strikes a cord with me - I’m often contending with teams that are building for the future complexities that they think might come up, and we realize later that we did get complexity in the problem later, but not the kind we had planned for, so all of that infrastructure and planning was wasted on an imaginary problem that no only didn’t help us but often actually make our task harder. The trick is to keep the solution set composable and flexible so that if complexity shows up later, we can reconfigure and build the new capabilities that we need rather than having to maneuver a large complicated system that we built on a white board before we really knew what the problem looked like.