4 ms·

> 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 do

> 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...
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Third party candidates have effectively no chance as long as a majority of the country falls into the view that voting for anyone other than a Democrat or Republican is a wasted vote. For the third parties, gaining support and more importantly funding is extremely difficult when we all fall into the D/R categories. Decreased voter participation would signal a growing lack of faith or trust in the two major parties. That can open doors for fund raising for third parties, because they now can point to a percent of the population that historically did vote and stopped. Similarly, it would open doors for gaining support and votes because they can make the same argument to voters - 20% (or whatever the decrease is) of voters gave up on both parties. Join our party if you lost faith in the others, and in a 3 way race that puts us very much in the hunt for fundamentally shaking up the system we have today.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > Third party candidates have effectively no chance as long as a majority of the country falls into the view that voting for anyone other than a Democrat or Republican is a wasted vote. This isn't just an opinion certain voters have, it's the truth. A vote for anyone other than one of the two parties with the best odds of winning is a "wasted vote" in the sense that when the third party candidate voted for doesn't win (and they almost certainly wont) that vote can't go to support anyone else. Our voting system makes that true. The only way a third party could ever win in under our current system would be if they managed to get a massive majority of the voters to vote for them, and a massive majority of the voters knew that the third part was going to be getting a massive majority of the votes before anyone voted. It's extremely unlikely that a third party could gain that much support. Especially because elections in the US tend to be pretty close. The best any president has ever managed was something like 60% of the popular vote.
  - kiitos 2y ago
    FPTP systematically prevents third-party candidates from becoming viable. Literally, unless FPTP changes, voting for anyone other than D or R is factually a wasted vote.
  - wredcoll 2y ago
sumedh 2y ago
> I owe nothing to the two parties You are free to do that but then dont complain if your rights are taken away.
- drewcoo 2y ago
  The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about proving I voted before I complain. If you want it to, you are free try to change the Constitution.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I can do more than complain when rights are taken away. That was the entire point of the second amendment, the populace needed to be able to defend itself from tyrants. I hope to never see that day come to pass and will do whatever I can to avoid it, but we aren't left with only complaining if fundamental rights truly are being taken away.
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    in FPTP, if you aren't voting tactically, you are in fact not doing whatever you can to avoid it.
kiitos 2y ago
There's nothing to disagree with, here. FPTP has proven equilibrium states, and proven effective voting strategies.
rcxdude 2y ago
The status quo of where the top parties go is a consequence of the voter's attitudes, because of the vote they don't actually have the power to just force an unpopular option. The reason they are presenting policies you don't like is because they think (probably accurately) that they will win them more votes than they lose. If a top party were to not do this, they would quickly lose relevance, ceding dominance to the other party and then setting the stage for another party to gain power. A third option doesn't actually reasonably exist, in any voting system, unless the electorate and parties reach this state, it's just FPTP needs tactical voting to reach accurate representation (even in systems which result in many parties in government, you will have coalitions which form compromises and you get voters who did not get much at all of what they voted for).

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...

_heimdall 2y ago
Third party candidates have effectively no chance as long as a majority of the country falls into the view that voting for anyone other than a Democrat or Republican is a wasted vote. For the third parties, gaining support and more importantly funding is extremely difficult when we all fall into the D/R categories. Decreased voter participation would signal a growing lack of faith or trust in the two major parties. That can open doors for fund raising for third parties, because they now can point to a percent of the population that historically did vote and stopped. Similarly, it would open doors for gaining support and votes because they can make the same argument to voters - 20% (or whatever the decrease is) of voters gave up on both parties. Join our party if you lost faith in the others, and in a 3 way race that puts us very much in the hunt for fundamentally shaking up the system we have today.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > Third party candidates have effectively no chance as long as a majority of the country falls into the view that voting for anyone other than a Democrat or Republican is a wasted vote. This isn't just an opinion certain voters have, it's the truth. A vote for anyone other than one of the two parties with the best odds of winning is a "wasted vote" in the sense that when the third party candidate voted for doesn't win (and they almost certainly wont) that vote can't go to support anyone else. Our voting system makes that true. The only way a third party could ever win in under our current system would be if they managed to get a massive majority of the voters to vote for them, and a massive majority of the voters knew that the third part was going to be getting a massive majority of the votes before anyone voted. It's extremely unlikely that a third party could gain that much support. Especially because elections in the US tend to be pretty close. The best any president has ever managed was something like 60% of the popular vote.
- kiitos 2y ago
  FPTP systematically prevents third-party candidates from becoming viable. Literally, unless FPTP changes, voting for anyone other than D or R is factually a wasted vote.
- wredcoll 2y ago

sumedh 2y ago

> I owe nothing to the two parties You are free to do that but then dont complain if your rights are taken away.

drewcoo 2y ago
The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about proving I voted before I complain. If you want it to, you are free try to change the Constitution.
_heimdall 2y ago
I can do more than complain when rights are taken away. That was the entire point of the second amendment, the populace needed to be able to defend itself from tyrants. I hope to never see that day come to pass and will do whatever I can to avoid it, but we aren't left with only complaining if fundamental rights truly are being taken away.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  in FPTP, if you aren't voting tactically, you are in fact not doing whatever you can to avoid it.

kiitos 2y ago

There's nothing to disagree with, here. FPTP has proven equilibrium states, and proven effective voting strategies.

rcxdude 2y ago

The status quo of where the top parties go is a consequence of the voter's attitudes, because of the vote they don't actually have the power to just force an unpopular option. The reason they are presenting policies you don't like is because they think (probably accurately) that they will win them more votes than they lose. If a top party were to not do this, they would quickly lose relevance, ceding dominance to the other party and then setting the stage for another party to gain power. A third option doesn't actually reasonably exist, in any voting system, unless the electorate and parties reach this state, it's just FPTP needs tactical voting to reach accurate representation (even in systems which result in many parties in government, you will have coalitions which form compromises and you get voters who did not get much at all of what they voted for).