4 ms·
No, 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
by dllthomas 10y ago
No, 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.