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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
If you’re acting in good faith why did you not answer when I asked if you understood how our elections work?
If you’re acting in good faith where did I state you were an elector?
If you’re acting in good faith why are you badgering with a question that you already know the answer to?
No. You are not “literally just asking you to explain your own understanding of presidential elections” and you know it. You refuse to participate in the discussion in favor of your own, possibly with the intent of seeking some kind of so-called gotcha moment. It’s not coming. They’re are functionally two parties within our presidential elections.
Since 1900 a third party candidate has received more than 5% of the popular vote (that’s you and me) roughly 6 times. That number drops to about 4 if you want more than 10%. In that same time a third party candidate has received any votes from electors (which are outdated but still very much the ones who are counted thus important to the process as it exists) in 6 elections. The last one was in 1972.
And just to further reinforce, that’s any votes from electors. The highest in that time was in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt received 88. George Wallace later got 46 in 1968 and Strom Thurmond managed 39 in 1948. They continue downward from there.
So no, as you’ve been told by others, a third party candidate is generally not electable in the system we have. This is why the system is often called a two party system despite the existence of third parties. You’ll notice in common parlance they’re not counted, they’re called third parties. This is not a controversial opinion I hold, it’s how it is widely discussed by laymen and experts alike.
But you already knew all that and instead chose to badger to try and, I can only assume, have some kind of moment or way you were right. You were acting in bad faith and I have no more time or energy for your type of “discussion”. Goodbye.
They are in a two party system
No they aren’t that is not how votes work.
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.
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.
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
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.
Right now candidate A and candidate B are functionally the same.
How many presidential elections have you participated in where more than two parties received any electoral votes at all?
When did I claim to be an elector?
I assumed you understood how a presidential election worked in the US. Was I mistaken?
I’m not an elector, so why would you bring up the electoral college?
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.
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?
Against my better judgement, why not.
If you’re acting in good faith why did you not answer when I asked if you understood how our elections work?
If you’re acting in good faith where did I state you were an elector?
If you’re acting in good faith why are you badgering with a question that you already know the answer to?
No. You are not “literally just asking you to explain your own understanding of presidential elections” and you know it. You refuse to participate in the discussion in favor of your own, possibly with the intent of seeking some kind of so-called gotcha moment. It’s not coming. They’re are functionally two parties within our presidential elections.
Since 1900 a third party candidate has received more than 5% of the popular vote (that’s you and me) roughly 6 times. That number drops to about 4 if you want more than 10%. In that same time a third party candidate has received any votes from electors (which are outdated but still very much the ones who are counted thus important to the process as it exists) in 6 elections. The last one was in 1972.
And just to further reinforce, that’s any votes from electors. The highest in that time was in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt received 88. George Wallace later got 46 in 1968 and Strom Thurmond managed 39 in 1948. They continue downward from there.
So no, as you’ve been told by others, a third party candidate is generally not electable in the system we have. This is why the system is often called a two party system despite the existence of third parties. You’ll notice in common parlance they’re not counted, they’re called third parties. This is not a controversial opinion I hold, it’s how it is widely discussed by laymen and experts alike.
But you already knew all that and instead chose to badger to try and, I can only assume, have some kind of moment or way you were right. You were acting in bad faith and I have no more time or energy for your type of “discussion”. Goodbye.