633
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
633 points (87.5% liked)
politics
19145 readers
1994 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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!