28 ms·
> Voting for one is throwing away your vote. No. It is not. The reason the two party system continues to exist is because so many people insist on there not be
by the_watcher 10y ago
> Voting for one is throwing away your vote.
No. It is not. The reason the two party system continues to exist is because so many people insist on there not being other options, despite there literally being other candidates on the ballot. There's a reason why Democrats have continued to spend money on turning Texas blue for years, despite the argument that they are "throwing money away." Momentum matters. Please don't listen to this. It's the absolute worst outcome of the two-party system: they've effectively convinced people that they're stuck with them, and it's why there are regular Republicans voting for Trump. Someone told them that not voting for him was throwing their vote away, and they listened.
- munificent 10y ago> The reason the two party system continues to exist is because so many people insist on there not being other options, despite there literally being other candidates on the ballot. No, it's because the mechanics of the voting rules themselves lead to a stable two party system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
- dragonwriter 10y agoAnd because people complain about the candidates each election, but never do anything about the system.
- munificent 10y agoVoting for a third party presidential candidate does not count as "doing anything".
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- the_watcher 10y agoExcept for demonstrating support for a third party candidate. You know, like voting is supposed to do.
- dragonwriter 10y agoRight, it doesn't count as doing anything about the electoral system. There are ways to do things about the electoral system, both within the parameters of partisan politics and outside of them (at least, in the latter case, in the states with direct citizen initiative.)