166
submitted 7 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

This works because almost all the US uses first-past-the-post elections for the Presidential general election. So you get outcomes like this:


Scenario 1:

Biden: 10 votes

Trump: 9 votes

Kennedy/Stein/West: 0 votes

Biden wins the state


Scenario 2:

Biden: 9 votes

Trump: 9 votes

Kennedy/Stein/West: 1 vote

Tied vote, decided by game of chance/lawsuit


Scenario 3:

Biden: 8 votes

Trump: 9 votes

Kennedy/Stein/West: 2 votes

Trump wins the state


This is why you see huge financial support from Republican billionaires for third party candidates who have no chance of winning.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] stanleytweedle@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

So you can't name even one candidate that fits your little theory?

[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Yeah you got it bucko, I can’t name any candidates I just link to 538 articles that you don’t read. Seriously just make your point already, stop edging me.

[-] stanleytweedle@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

My point is you can't name a single candidate that fits your theory.

[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

No, I can. I can point to the data in the article that shows that Manchin and west would benefit Trump when polled in 2023. I can point to data for progress showing that an “independent” candidate like Hogan would swing things for Trump. I can point to 2016 when fewer than 100k votes decided the election. I can use that to extrapolate out that the third party slate tends to benefit republicans. But my BROADER point is that you don’t actually give a shit, you could have googled this if you did, and you’ve been waiting for me to drop a name so you could determine precisely which bad faith, misguided, or incomplete argument against precisely that candidate you can pull out of your Rolodex of talking points.

So please get to your fucking point already because if it’s what you said in your comment then the answer was for you to READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE AND USE GOOGLE all along. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were just a lazy troll who wanted me to say a name instead of reading a name in an article, but maybe it’s simpler than that: did you actually think I couldn’t name a third party candidate?

Can…can you not name one? Are you trying to get me to name one because you don’t know any? Is this a cry for help?

this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
166 points (92.8% liked)

politics

19089 readers
1735 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS