• TC_209 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        While there are two dominant political parties in the United States, every presidential election I’ve participated in has had more than two candidates to choose from. I’d appreciate it if you’d expand upon your point.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The US is under FPTP, only two candidates matter and voting outside those two or refusing to vote is mathematically identical to a vote for the candidate least aligned with your own values.

        • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Oh boy I’m sure this isn’t a question in bad faith asking how an extremely obvious and well documented flaw of first past the post works

        • WolfLink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Face it: there are only two candidates who realistically have a chance at winning the general election. It’s been that way for every US election we’ve seen.

          If you vote for someone who doesn’t have a realistic chance of winning, that’s about the same as just not voting at all.

          So you really have 3 choices: candidate A, candidate B, or indifference.

          And there are two possible outcomes: candidate A or candidate B.

          If one of those outcomes is at all preferable to the other, (e.g. either A is “better” or B is “worse”), it’s strategically best to vote for the main candidate you prefer, since that increases the chance of getting your preference of the two outcomes.

        • Doug [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          How many presidential elections have you participated in where more than two parties received any electoral votes at all?

                • Doug [he/him]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Because they’re an instrumental part of how the election process works for quite a while now. If a candidate is receiving 0 electoral votes they are functionally as electable as you or I.

                  You’ve more than proven yourself to be in bad faith here though, so you’ll have to pester someone else with future efforts.

                  • TC_209 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    I’m literally just asking you to explain your own understanding of presidential elections and that’s somehow acting in bad faith? What else am I supposed to do, given that you mistakenly believe that there are only two political parties in the US and, for some unknown reason, I’m an elector and not just a regular voter?