“The race for the White House is too close for comfort,” write parties from around Europe, calling on Stein to throw her support behind Democrat Kamala Harris.
I think the challenge this argument has is that it ignores the spoiler effect that is the biggest problem in FPTP, and it assumes party changes have happened because a third party successfully unseated a traditional party in a sort of coup.
First, the spoiler effect is very real. You’ll notice the better a third party does, the worse it is for that whole faction of the electorate. It’s a bit of a paradox but you can see it with the notable 3rd party runs. Teddy Roosevelt got Woodrow Wilson elected. Ross Perot gave the election to Clinton by splitting the right. Ralph Nader solidified Bush as president. The better the third party does, the stronger the spoiler effect. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just the math.
Next, when there is a party change, such as the fall of the federalists or the whigs, it is because they fell apart due to losing a war or their positions (such as opposing manifest destiny) became moot and they no longer had a purpose. This created a void that was then filled with a new party. This was not because a 3rd party arrived and had a David vs Goliath situation. In this metaphor Goliath was already dead when David showed up.
Some questions to ask: what does it mean to have a politically diverse election? How does FPTP or RCV have impact in a time where we have more tools for social engineering (like social media and surveillance tools)? What assumptions of the Republican and Democratic parties are we making? What assumptions are we making on the electorate that they are composed of?
This whole fucking post is about candidates in deep blue areas running without a viable challenger and you come back to write paragraphs about the spoiler effect? The whole of the post is about places where the spoiler effect does not apply. You didn’t read anything you replied to.
You are pretty darn passionate about voting and 3rd parties and that’s great. I read your comment so I was replying to your comment.
Sometimes tangents happen online, and sometimes topics change. Please understand that I am also passionate about these things, so in a Lemmy thread we can end up in many different places. No need to get upset.
I think the challenge this argument has is that it ignores the spoiler effect that is the biggest problem in FPTP, and it assumes party changes have happened because a third party successfully unseated a traditional party in a sort of coup.
First, the spoiler effect is very real. You’ll notice the better a third party does, the worse it is for that whole faction of the electorate. It’s a bit of a paradox but you can see it with the notable 3rd party runs. Teddy Roosevelt got Woodrow Wilson elected. Ross Perot gave the election to Clinton by splitting the right. Ralph Nader solidified Bush as president. The better the third party does, the stronger the spoiler effect. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just the math.
Next, when there is a party change, such as the fall of the federalists or the whigs, it is because they fell apart due to losing a war or their positions (such as opposing manifest destiny) became moot and they no longer had a purpose. This created a void that was then filled with a new party. This was not because a 3rd party arrived and had a David vs Goliath situation. In this metaphor Goliath was already dead when David showed up.
Some questions to ask: what does it mean to have a politically diverse election? How does FPTP or RCV have impact in a time where we have more tools for social engineering (like social media and surveillance tools)? What assumptions of the Republican and Democratic parties are we making? What assumptions are we making on the electorate that they are composed of?
This whole fucking post is about candidates in deep blue areas running without a viable challenger and you come back to write paragraphs about the spoiler effect? The whole of the post is about places where the spoiler effect does not apply. You didn’t read anything you replied to.
That was an aggressive reply and wasn’t very Mr. Rodgers of you.
Did you learn nothing from PBS kids?
Mr. Rodgers says READ POSTS BEFORE YOU REPLY TO THEM. Not spamming people with unrelated responses is the first step in respectful dialogue.
You are pretty darn passionate about voting and 3rd parties and that’s great. I read your comment so I was replying to your comment.
Sometimes tangents happen online, and sometimes topics change. Please understand that I am also passionate about these things, so in a Lemmy thread we can end up in many different places. No need to get upset.
deleted by creator
Also I’d like to add while rereading the thread, I’m not sure where you see the disconnect. Everything seems pretty straightforward to me.