Collective Action Problems

Oh, nice link (not sarcastic), I didn't realize these issues had a name. Thanks!

But it doesn't apply to the hypothetical. The first line is "A collective action problem or social dilemma is a situation in which all individuals would be better off cooperating but fail to do so because of conflicting interests between individuals that discourage joint action." The hypothetical was that the majority of people already agree on a specific candidate. So there are no conflicting interests that matter.

First off, let’s note that these polls do not currently exist.

I don't understand the point of this paragraph. Do you think the current green candidate has a majority interest? If so, then we should start making polls. Conservatives make polls every day like "Bad Black Man Bad?". I am pretty sure this not a difficult task, especially if we have a majority.

Second, if these polls did exist, their implications would not be immediately apparent.

Yes, I agree with this. I understand why this isn't ideal, but humans are messy. Like I said is might be 4 - 8 years before we are able to act on our majority.

I think "immediately" also points out some emotional energy. I think you are weighing the horrors of the current situation (and they are very bad) and are willing to take extreme risk to stop those horrors. An admirable goal, but taking those extremes risks has consequences and not just for you. The risk you are currently taking is trying to convince as many people as possible to vote in such a way to throw a wrench in the system. This can work if you can get a large enough amount of people, but that is like a 1 - 5 percent chance. That leaves a 95% percent chance that the outcomes will be the worst possible. On top of this, as you have said, you currently have no metrics. So you don't know how likely you are to succeed. It's a bad gamble and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

And if people saw it that way and did not switch, then the next election cycle, they would say, “see, we were right, it was a statistical anomaly, that question is not a reliable predictor of who would win.”

Ok, so we miss once and stop trying? Why is the left so weak in your mind? Why not just keep trying until we get the candidate that everyone wants elected elected?

Third, which candidates people like and dislike is influenced by the exposure they have to that candidate.

Where did this come from? I will assume this is a closing argument and not an answer to my question. As I have stated before. Money is very helpful, but not necessary. You can do things like fundraise. Berne proved that it was possible. And the bigger the majority you have, the more of a source you have.

Is that enough?

You linked me to an interesting wiki article that didn't apply. You wrote a paragraph about how we currently don't have polls, then claimed victory. You talked about how my idea wouldn't work right away, then assumed people would just give up. Then you talked about how money was necessary, which was not part of the question.

So your answer boils down to leftist will just give up even if they have the majority, because organizing is hard and not perfect.

I will accept this. I asked a question, you answered to the best of your ability. You and I are both tired of this conversation. I am good with ending it here. I will not be replying to this conversation after this.

I will have to find someone else to convince me that no-voting or 3rd party voting is a good idea, because we are not communicating well.

I wish you well. No hard feelings, have a nice life.