Vice President Kamala Harris' refusal to break with the Biden administration's support for Israel's assault on Gaza cost her millions of potential Democratic voters. Will the Democratic Party learn from this and listen to its voters who want leaders to oppose sending more weapons to Israel? #Gaza #ElectionImpact
Correct, candidates are not entitled to votes, but I dont know what voting system your fantasy world uses.
Lets ignore parties for a moment and just say you have two people running that are different degrees of evil. I would argue a failure to vote for the lesser evil is to abide the greater evil (does this make you evil?). In this case, abstaining or apathy itself is also a choice, and would be cosidered evil because you did not act against the greater evil.
Lets add a more realistic third candidate in and demonstrate the spoiler effect. Where there is an idealogical divide, the side with the fewer candidates wins. If a third party throws their hat into the ring, they end up encroching on support held by their idealogical peers, effectivly handing the win to their oppsition by simply existing.
Combining both of these observations looks an awful lot like the electoral college and the US voting system. Neither major party is willing to allow a third party to exist in their space, because if they do they lose by spoiler effect and forces people to strategicly vote instead of standing by their ideals. The solution is getting rid of first-past-the-post and moving to a ranked choice or instant run-off system similar to the ones found in the EU, this would allow people to put their ideal candidate first without jepordizing their idealogical peers. Until such a time when that is a reality, being a protest voter/non-voter is making a choice against your own self interests and the interests of those you care for.
Oh, okay. Well you know Flying Squid better than I do because I didn’t think he even implied that candidates were entitled to votes.
Please continue and tell me more about this Flying Squid fellow because I really thought I could get inside his head and figure out what he was thinking.
You’re certainly not because that is not a recognized psychological disorder, but the issue here is that I thought I was Flying Squid, but you’re telling me Flying Squid is saying things that I definitely did not in any way even imply.
So who am I?
By the way, can you please quote where Flying Squid said a candidate is entitled to votes? Because I’ve read everything Flying Squid has said in this thread and I have yet to find it.
(This is where you refuse to quote what you claim was said if this plays out how these things normally do.)
You pretty much implied it, I’m sorry if you can’t see the connection you yourself implied but maybe see that others in the thread also see and recognize the implications your statement made
Fine, please quote the person you are claiming is me implying it.
You’ve literally already had a day. How many more days is it going to take? Because just admitting what you said is a lie isn’t going to happen so I’m really interested to see if you’re going to keep stretching this out or you’re going to give up.
Anyway man I’m not going to argue with you about this I see you around on Lemmy and I agree with most of what you speak to…. Not gonna worry about this but we do need to stop blaming voters and blame the dnc
I am doing no such thing and that’s a ridiculous lie to tell.
That’s literally what you’re doing. Candidates are not entitled to votes.
Correct, candidates are not entitled to votes, but I dont know what voting system your fantasy world uses.
Lets ignore parties for a moment and just say you have two people running that are different degrees of evil. I would argue a failure to vote for the lesser evil is to abide the greater evil (does this make you evil?). In this case, abstaining or apathy itself is also a choice, and would be cosidered evil because you did not act against the greater evil.
Lets add a more realistic third candidate in and demonstrate the spoiler effect. Where there is an idealogical divide, the side with the fewer candidates wins. If a third party throws their hat into the ring, they end up encroching on support held by their idealogical peers, effectivly handing the win to their oppsition by simply existing.
Combining both of these observations looks an awful lot like the electoral college and the US voting system. Neither major party is willing to allow a third party to exist in their space, because if they do they lose by spoiler effect and forces people to strategicly vote instead of standing by their ideals. The solution is getting rid of first-past-the-post and moving to a ranked choice or instant run-off system similar to the ones found in the EU, this would allow people to put their ideal candidate first without jepordizing their idealogical peers. Until such a time when that is a reality, being a protest voter/non-voter is making a choice against your own self interests and the interests of those you care for.
Oh, okay. Well you know Flying Squid better than I do because I didn’t think he even implied that candidates were entitled to votes.
Please continue and tell me more about this Flying Squid fellow because I really thought I could get inside his head and figure out what he was thinking.
Good luck with that, as of now he seems to have multiple personality disorder, but I’m no doctor 🤷♂️
You’re certainly not because that is not a recognized psychological disorder, but the issue here is that I thought I was Flying Squid, but you’re telling me Flying Squid is saying things that I definitely did not in any way even imply.
So who am I?
By the way, can you please quote where Flying Squid said a candidate is entitled to votes? Because I’ve read everything Flying Squid has said in this thread and I have yet to find it.
(This is where you refuse to quote what you claim was said if this plays out how these things normally do.)
Edit: called it.
You pretty much implied it, I’m sorry if you can’t see the connection you yourself implied but maybe see that others in the thread also see and recognize the implications your statement made
Oh look, you’re back without a quote.
Fine, please quote the person you are claiming is me implying it.
You’ve literally already had a day. How many more days is it going to take? Because just admitting what you said is a lie isn’t going to happen so I’m really interested to see if you’re going to keep stretching this out or you’re going to give up.
Anyway man I’m not going to argue with you about this I see you around on Lemmy and I agree with most of what you speak to…. Not gonna worry about this but we do need to stop blaming voters and blame the dnc