• kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Of course - and siphoning progressive voters from practical opposition to Trump is going to help the climate a great deal.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I do. I also know that it doesn’t reflect either how people should or actually do make decisions.

          • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except it does. That is why a two part system is inevitable is a winner-take-all election system as we have. Politicians want as few competitors as possible, which is one (exceptions being a one party totalitarian government). The two parties reinforce their dominance by passing laws that limit the ability of third parties to get on the ballot. They also constrain funding to their own parties, so third parties can’t even begin to match their resources. Third parties CAN NOT win in the current political system. A third party vote is only ever taking a vote away from one of the two major party candidates.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              if what you say about the inevitability of the two parties prevailing is true, then the fact that human behavior is not dictated by game theory is very easy to prove: people still vote third party despite this. I don’t actually believe what you said is provable, nor do I believe people always act in rational self interest.

              • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That people don’t act in rational self interest is exactly what game theory is about. The Prisoner’s Dilemma speaks precisely to this. The fact that there has been no president elected from a third party since the fall of the Whig party is proof enough that it just can’t happen.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I guarantee there will not be an america, a democrat party, or a republican party in 2000 years. 500 years is likely. 5 years is possible. none of this requires game theory.

                  the prisoners dilemma does not speak at all about the longevity of political parties or the possibility of getting any of them elected. it also doesn’t actually describe a real situation that’s ever happened or will happen. it’s a thought experiment that pols I majors think justifies voting for genocide.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Stein needs to earn them too. I see no reason why I should give my vote to someone who boosts pseudoscience. She’s welcome to start trying at any time.

    • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      3rd party’s don’t siphon votes. We wouldn’t vote for your BlueMAGA pieces of shit if they were the only ones in the ballot