Well… That would depend on how many people vote for a third party, doesn’t it?
I mean, I know Americans love telling other Americans that voting third party is a wasted vote, but that’s a self-fulfilling profacy. If everyone believes nobody is voting third party, then nobody will vote third party, so third parties never win, which will lead Americans to say that nobody votes for third parties.
Your first past the post system and your major news agencies who don’t have the decency to pretend to be impartial is really doing a number on your country.
Edit: Always fun to see how Americans get so offended about being reminded of such a simple fact. All the excuses and the downvotes are great indications of how you’re all doomed to be stuck with what you have.
Our voting system fundamentally doesn’t allow for third parties to win the vote.
Even if we said “vote for a third party, there’s a statistically significant chance they might win!” this wouldn’t fix the issue, because Jill Stein doesn’t take votes from both sides equally.
Jill Stein leans left, which means people who are otherwise Democrat voters are going to be the largest demographic voting for her.
Our voting system is first past the post, which means this will actually decrease the chance of a left-leaning victory.
Let’s say Dems get 55% of the vote without Jill Stein, and Reps get 45%. Democrats win.
Then, we add in Jill Stein. A significant amount of voters switch over, even some Republicans. (which, in reality, would probably not at all, because Jill Stein’s policies are even further from their beliefs than even the Democrats are)
Dems get 35% of the vote. Reps get 40% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 25%.
Democrats & Jill Stein lose, Republicans win.
If Jill Stein were entirely impartial, and took votes equally from each side, then we could have a vote like…
Dems get 45% of the vote. Reps get 35% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 20% of the vote. Democrats win in the same way they would have whether or not there was a third party.
The issue is that, obviously, Jill Stein isn’t taking equal parts of the vote, so this inevitably just reduces votes for Democrats, without reducing votes for Republicans.
It’s not an ideal system, (which is why we should advocate for Instant-Runoff or Rated voting) but it’s the option that will lead to the most left-leaning outcome, as opposed to a heavily fascist one.
Then why do they never win any votes in the electoral college? When is the last time a third party ever succeeded nationally in the US when it didn’t involve the dissolution of some other party that preceded it?
Then I guess I’d like someone to explain the mathematical probability, because from an empirical standpoint I haven’t seen anything to disprove the claim being made above.
you can’t prove a negative, but a positive claim has been offered here. so the person putting forward the claim must support it, as a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The very assertion that a negative claim can’t be proven is itself a negative claim, to frame it another way. Though that claim is unproven as it would be a paradox to be otherwise.
You need 270 Electoral College votes to prevent the vote going to the states for the Presidency. There are 538 votes available. The only way to have more than two parties compete and have the election not go to the House is if one party is unified and has large public support against the other parties that do not. This essentially creates a single-party state.
Ergo, our system is designed to have two parties, each with roughly half the population behind them. Anything more mathematically ends in a single party state.
Well… That would depend on how many people vote for a third party, doesn’t it?
I mean, I know Americans love telling other Americans that voting third party is a wasted vote, but that’s a self-fulfilling profacy. If everyone believes nobody is voting third party, then nobody will vote third party, so third parties never win, which will lead Americans to say that nobody votes for third parties.
Your first past the post system and your major news agencies who don’t have the decency to pretend to be impartial is really doing a number on your country.
Edit: Always fun to see how Americans get so offended about being reminded of such a simple fact. All the excuses and the downvotes are great indications of how you’re all doomed to be stuck with what you have.
You are your own worst enemy.
Our voting system fundamentally doesn’t allow for third parties to win the vote.
Even if we said “vote for a third party, there’s a statistically significant chance they might win!” this wouldn’t fix the issue, because Jill Stein doesn’t take votes from both sides equally.
Jill Stein leans left, which means people who are otherwise Democrat voters are going to be the largest demographic voting for her.
Our voting system is first past the post, which means this will actually decrease the chance of a left-leaning victory.
Let’s say Dems get 55% of the vote without Jill Stein, and Reps get 45%. Democrats win.
Then, we add in Jill Stein. A significant amount of voters switch over, even some Republicans. (which, in reality, would probably not at all, because Jill Stein’s policies are even further from their beliefs than even the Democrats are)
Dems get 35% of the vote. Reps get 40% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 25%. Democrats & Jill Stein lose, Republicans win.
If Jill Stein were entirely impartial, and took votes equally from each side, then we could have a vote like…
Dems get 45% of the vote. Reps get 35% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 20% of the vote. Democrats win in the same way they would have whether or not there was a third party.
The issue is that, obviously, Jill Stein isn’t taking equal parts of the vote, so this inevitably just reduces votes for Democrats, without reducing votes for Republicans.
It’s not an ideal system, (which is why we should advocate for Instant-Runoff or Rated voting) but it’s the option that will lead to the most left-leaning outcome, as opposed to a heavily fascist one.
It’s mathematically Impossible to have a 3rd party in the US, when are you people with other systems going to understand that?
you’re making that up
Then why do they never win any votes in the electoral college? When is the last time a third party ever succeeded nationally in the US when it didn’t involve the dissolution of some other party that preceded it?
That’s not math. those are just questions.
Then I guess I’d like someone to explain the mathematical probability, because from an empirical standpoint I haven’t seen anything to disprove the claim being made above.
you can’t prove a negative, but a positive claim has been offered here. so the person putting forward the claim must support it, as a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You absolutely can prove a negative, actually.
The very assertion that a negative claim can’t be proven is itself a negative claim, to frame it another way. Though that claim is unproven as it would be a paradox to be otherwise.
You’re on a roll today. I just may love you a little bit!
You need 270 Electoral College votes to prevent the vote going to the states for the Presidency. There are 538 votes available. The only way to have more than two parties compete and have the election not go to the House is if one party is unified and has large public support against the other parties that do not. This essentially creates a single-party state.
Ergo, our system is designed to have two parties, each with roughly half the population behind them. Anything more mathematically ends in a single party state.
this is not a mathematical proof. it’s a story.
Don’t come to Lemmy for math proofs, particularly in a political conversation. What an obtuse statement.
the claim is that it’s mathematical fact. I am only demanding a proof
Yep!