this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
104 points (90.0% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
9896 readers
3 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this. If the reason is in the source but is tedious to find (e.g. in a lengthy video), you must add an explanation for where it is.
- Posts should use high-quality sources (for a rough idea, check out this list), and posts should retain the title (if one exists) from works like news articles, videos, etc. You may (but need not) edit your post if the source changes the title. Other types of posts should have a title which accurately, relatively neutrally describes their contents.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal. Within moderator discretion, this doesn't just include reposts of the exact same media but also includes e.g. a secondary source telling basically the exact same story as another that was already posted.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out:
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nothing wrong with voting 3rd party. Blame the people who don't vote/vote for the side you don't like.
The closest a 3rd party candidate ever got was Teddy Roosevelt, Bull Moose Party in 1912, 27% of the vote, lost to Wilson, 42%. Voting for third party ensures your vote won't count for spit, but something tells me you're a Republican and that's the whole point of your op post.
https://www.pbs.org/thinktank/thirdchoice/timeline.html
The Republicans are a third party.
If 10% of the vote goes to x then there's motivation to court voters from x.
If you only vote 2 parties then you're only courting voters from the other party.
That is what makes them a "third party," isn't it? When a third party starts doing well enough to win elections, they just stop being called a third party. And that has happened, or we'd be choosing between the Whigs and the Democratic-Republicans.
That's never going to happen in a first past the post system.
So who did you vote for, the Democratic-Republicans or the Whigs? Since that can never happen in a FPTP system, it stands to reason that we must still have the two parties we started with. Was there some time period in history where the US didn't have FPTP where all the party shuffling happened?
You're being pedantic. It's obvious that I meant that it's never going to happen this far into our current system. There's a very obvious reason why things shuffled around a lot early on and have settled into two very distinct parties, and you're a complete idiot if you don't realize that...
username checks out :D
I can see how people might see voting 3rd party as functionally equivalent to not voting when it comes to one-round FPTP systems, though. It's better from a deontological standpoint, yes. But consequence-wise it's more/less the same result as not voting, if I understood it correctly.
Normally i wouldnt mind this and would agree with you. But not on the only candidate we've ever had that has begged to be made king and actively tried to violently over throw the system
We've seen exactly what happens when you do that, dumbfuck.
How many more people have to die?
Say the same to yourself bud. How many more people need to die before you realize the system is the problem, not the people voting. Because it seems y'all only care when it's Americans that die.