4 ms·

You should reevaluate what a vote means. In a country of millions of people, a vote is in absolutely no way a means for you to voice exactly what you want, or e

You should reevaluate what a vote means. In a country of millions of people, a vote is in absolutely no way a means for you to voice exactly what you want, or even for most people for you to voice an option you would actually like. In FPTP, a vote is for the most preferable option of the top two parties. Anything else is depriving yourself of your say. Other voting systems aren't actually that much different, they just make the information more available (you don't need to guess how others are going to vote beforehand, which can matter even though it's usually fairly predictable) and give people a bit more of a warm fuzzy feeling because they can give a vote for their most preferred option, even if still the outcome is which of top two options is more preferred.

jprete 2y ago
This isn't strictly true. Parties definitely care about motivating their base and arguably the stay-at-home vote has pushed the US away from visible centrism in Presidential candidates.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  I would suggest that this kind of thing is contributing to the problem as opposed to solving it, even as someone who is not particularly near the center.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    A drop in voter participation creates an opportunity for an alternative party to fill the void. That market opportunity simply wouldn't exist if always accept that we have to eat whatever crap the two major parties decide to serve us.
    - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      How low do you think participation would have to be for another party to step in?
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        I really don't know, it would depend on a lot if factors. More important to me though is that I think it's st least a possibility in that scenario, as long as a vast majority of voters believe they only have two options we won't have a third party step in.
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      If the two main parties were to drift well away from the opinion of the voters, and the voters all picked the closer option of the two, then one party would become dominant, the other irrelevant, and then there would be an option for an alternative party to fill the void closer to the voters. Note that this would be the case in any other voting system as well: whatever your preferred party is only gets to power at the expense of one of the others. The main reason this doesn't happen often is that the politics of those parties tends to shift to try to win those votes. (IMO, the sad fact of most democracies nowadays is that the government does in fact tend to reasonably well represent the average of what the voters want, in terms of method if not results. Given the state of them, I think it reflects poorly on the voters, but there's not really any better way to align government and populace)
_heimdall 2y ago
> In FPTP, a vote is for the most preferable option of the top two parties. I wholeheartedly disagree with this take. I owe nothing to the two parties and I don't agree that they get to control everything to the point that I can only pick between two bad options they offer me. Allowing parties to take this power leaves the door wide open for both parties to end up providing options that want to go in directions fundamentally bad for the country and I have to vote for one of them. To be clear I'm not saying that is the case today, but your view on voting makes that possible. If one doesn't vote when they feel strongly that both party candidates are harmful, voter participation goes down and it opens the door for a new party to step up and have a legitimate chance. Said another way, refusing to vote when I absolutely disagree with both candidates creates a market for an alternative that wouldn't exist if I gave in and accepted choosing between two bad options.
- Macha 2y ago
  > I wholeheartedly disagree with this take. I owe nothing to the two parties and I don't agree that they get to control everything to the point that I can only pick between two bad options they offer me. I don't think he's saying it's desirable, but is an outcome of the FPTP system. If you don't want to pick between only two bad options, then you'll need to eliminate the spoiler effect by switching to something like STV.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I'd be happy for us to switch to an STV model, I'd also be happy with a majority rules vote without the electoral college. Neither option is helpful this time around though. That said, I'd vote for congressional representatives that I believe actually will push for such a change if that option was available to me.
- dahart 2y ago
  Wait, how does lack of voter participation open any new party doors? There’s third party candidates on the ballot, which sometimes get a little traction, and then there’s write-ins, which don’t get traction. Not voting avoids both of those possibilities. Ranked-choice voting would enable other parties in a real way. I don’t see how not voting opens any doors. A third party has no legitimate chance in this election or for the foreseeable future unless voting breaks down completely. Neither party is going to let that happen if they can help it. The last third-party candidate to make it to 2nd place was more than 100 years ago (Teddy Roosevelt, 1912). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_independent_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_indepe...
Terr_ 2y ago
> Anything else is depriving yourself of your say. As much as plurality voting sucks, that's not true unless you assume there is only one election ever. In reality the game-theory is iterative: What happens this time influences players next time. If X is concerned about losing to Y, they have an incentive to court voters that previously went for Z.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  That tends not to work very well. In most countries, the third-party options are usually more extreme, and courting their voters may get them, but at the expense of even more votes in the center. In FPTP, third parties and their votes (as well as voters staying home), tend to disadvantage their own goals much more than advance them.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I may very well just be out of touch today, but I find both major parties in the US to be extreme. The policies they say they support and the rhetoric used to demonize the other party are both much to extreme for me. At the end of the day the average person is just trying to live a decent life where they and their loved ones can be happy. We all have different ideas of what that takes, but we don't need to liken those we disagree with to Nazis out to destroy democracy.
swader999 2y ago
In Canada, I've voted for the fifth place party in the past. I simply wanted them to get enough popular vote to qualify for official party status. Felt like I helped make a difference to get another voice in the fray.

jprete 2y ago

This isn't strictly true. Parties definitely care about motivating their base and arguably the stay-at-home vote has pushed the US away from visible centrism in Presidential candidates.

rcxdude 2y ago
I would suggest that this kind of thing is contributing to the problem as opposed to solving it, even as someone who is not particularly near the center.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  A drop in voter participation creates an opportunity for an alternative party to fill the void. That market opportunity simply wouldn't exist if always accept that we have to eat whatever crap the two major parties decide to serve us.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    How low do you think participation would have to be for another party to step in?
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I really don't know, it would depend on a lot if factors. More important to me though is that I think it's st least a possibility in that scenario, as long as a vast majority of voters believe they only have two options we won't have a third party step in.
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    If the two main parties were to drift well away from the opinion of the voters, and the voters all picked the closer option of the two, then one party would become dominant, the other irrelevant, and then there would be an option for an alternative party to fill the void closer to the voters. Note that this would be the case in any other voting system as well: whatever your preferred party is only gets to power at the expense of one of the others. The main reason this doesn't happen often is that the politics of those parties tends to shift to try to win those votes. (IMO, the sad fact of most democracies nowadays is that the government does in fact tend to reasonably well represent the average of what the voters want, in terms of method if not results. Given the state of them, I think it reflects poorly on the voters, but there's not really any better way to align government and populace)

_heimdall 2y ago

> In FPTP, a vote is for the most preferable option of the top two parties. I wholeheartedly disagree with this take. I owe nothing to the two parties and I don't agree that they get to control everything to the point that I can only pick between two bad options they offer me. Allowing parties to take this power leaves the door wide open for both parties to end up providing options that want to go in directions fundamentally bad for the country and I have to vote for one of them. To be clear I'm not saying that is the case today, but your view on voting makes that possible. If one doesn't vote when they feel strongly that both party candidates are harmful, voter participation goes down and it opens the door for a new party to step up and have a legitimate chance. Said another way, refusing to vote when I absolutely disagree with both candidates creates a market for an alternative that wouldn't exist if I gave in and accepted choosing between two bad options.

Macha 2y ago
> I wholeheartedly disagree with this take. I owe nothing to the two parties and I don't agree that they get to control everything to the point that I can only pick between two bad options they offer me. I don't think he's saying it's desirable, but is an outcome of the FPTP system. If you don't want to pick between only two bad options, then you'll need to eliminate the spoiler effect by switching to something like STV.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I'd be happy for us to switch to an STV model, I'd also be happy with a majority rules vote without the electoral college. Neither option is helpful this time around though. That said, I'd vote for congressional representatives that I believe actually will push for such a change if that option was available to me.
dahart 2y ago
Wait, how does lack of voter participation open any new party doors? There’s third party candidates on the ballot, which sometimes get a little traction, and then there’s write-ins, which don’t get traction. Not voting avoids both of those possibilities. Ranked-choice voting would enable other parties in a real way. I don’t see how not voting opens any doors. A third party has no legitimate chance in this election or for the foreseeable future unless voting breaks down completely. Neither party is going to let that happen if they can help it. The last third-party candidate to make it to 2nd place was more than 100 years ago (Teddy Roosevelt, 1912). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_independent_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_indepe...

Terr_ 2y ago

> Anything else is depriving yourself of your say. As much as plurality voting sucks, that's not true unless you assume there is only one election ever. In reality the game-theory is iterative: What happens this time influences players next time. If X is concerned about losing to Y, they have an incentive to court voters that previously went for Z.

rcxdude 2y ago
That tends not to work very well. In most countries, the third-party options are usually more extreme, and courting their voters may get them, but at the expense of even more votes in the center. In FPTP, third parties and their votes (as well as voters staying home), tend to disadvantage their own goals much more than advance them.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I may very well just be out of touch today, but I find both major parties in the US to be extreme. The policies they say they support and the rhetoric used to demonize the other party are both much to extreme for me. At the end of the day the average person is just trying to live a decent life where they and their loved ones can be happy. We all have different ideas of what that takes, but we don't need to liken those we disagree with to Nazis out to destroy democracy.

swader999 2y ago

In Canada, I've voted for the fifth place party in the past. I simply wanted them to get enough popular vote to qualify for official party status. Felt like I helped make a difference to get another voice in the fray.