I don’t give a fuck if America has more than “two” parties, but either one of two things is true:
Americans are more aligned with the two parties than people would like to believe.
Many people won’t vote for a third candidate because they feel that their vote would be “wasted”, because it wouldn’t contribute to one of the “likely” parties to win.
If I had to guess, the former is probably more true than people on social media and the left would like to believe.
It’s worse. It’s both, which is in part why third parties don’t ever work.
And the solution is election reform, not yelling “just vote for what you believe”. Because people just voting for what they believe causes spoiler candidates to spoil elections.
I don’t disagree that reform is needed, but I do disagree that voting for a third candidate is useless, purely on the basis that they work elsewhere. My point is that America isn’t special, and a party that won’t necessarily win can affect policy without ever truly seeing power.
No, we wouldn’t. There are still people who’s closest candidate is one of the two main parties.
That’s the argument, no?
I don’t give a fuck if America has more than “two” parties, but either one of two things is true:
If I had to guess, the former is probably more true than people on social media and the left would like to believe.
It’s worse. It’s both, which is in part why third parties don’t ever work.
And the solution is election reform, not yelling “just vote for what you believe”. Because people just voting for what they believe causes spoiler candidates to spoil elections.
I don’t disagree that reform is needed, but I do disagree that voting for a third candidate is useless, purely on the basis that they work elsewhere. My point is that America isn’t special, and a party that won’t necessarily win can affect policy without ever truly seeing power.
Do you mean working elsewhere, with elsewhere being other levels of government, or elsewhere being other countries?
Either way I disagree, but I want clarification first.