Voters want change, but still remain unsatisfied with their options

  • CoWizard@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    3rd party, on a national scale, is guaranteed to fail in fptp. The only one who wins in fptp is the least hated (of 2) candidate. 3rd party votes just suck votes that could be voted against that most hated candidate

    • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This isn’t inherently a failure of first past the post, this is a failure of human psychology.

      • CoderKat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, it’s definitely a FPTP failure. If you have progressive third party candidate who mostly attracts voters who would otherwise have voted Democrat, it splits the vote. Even if the majority of people voted for either the third party or the Democrat candidate (let’s say 30% each), the Republican candidate would get win even with 60% of people not wanting them.

        I suspect you’re thinking of people being afraid to vote third party and thus dooming the third party to lose, but the fallacy of that is assuming that everyone would genuinely vote for the third party over other candidates, which isn’t the case. Articles like the one we’re commenting on are only pointing out the most common belief.

      • DH Clapp@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        First past the post voting systems prevent viable third parties because of human psychology. Why are we pretending to argue about how we phrase this?

    • Maeve@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If everyone do preferred a third party candidate actually voted third party, that would change. That’s just another establishment talking point.