3 ms·
And yet that disappointment didn't translate into voting for other candidates -- and I'm not talking about voting for Romney or Trump, there were plenty of othe
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
And yet that disappointment didn't translate into voting for other candidates -- and I'm not talking about voting for Romney or Trump, there were plenty of other options the whole time -- so in the end it is of no value.
- r00fus 10y agoThere are exactly 2 choices that are possible for any first-past-the-post voting system. Change that (which I support) and we can talk 3rd parties. I supported Sanders 2016 primary and his 2012 primary threat to Obama, after having voted for Obama in 2008. Once the options became Obama (and now Clinton), I voted for those simply because the alternative means more coal, less regulations, and more religious right.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mzw_mzw 10y agoThat is to say, you voted for the surveillance state. There were other candidates running, you know.
- dllthomas 10y agoNo, that is to say they were not presented with the option to cast a meaningful vote for or against the surveillance state (in a general election) and so chose to use their vote to speak about other things.
- mzw_mzw 10y agoThe only reason third-party isn't a meaningful vote is because of people who tell themselves that it isn't a meaningful vote.
- dllthomas 10y agoNo, the reason a third-party isn't a meaningful vote is because we have a voting system that means any vote for any but the two most-likely-to-win candidates has a basically zero chance of affecting the outcome. The reason these particular parties' candidates are the two most likely to win is, certainly, because everyone understands them to be the two most likely to win... but we don't fix that by simply pretending it's not the case.