• GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Sure, but we also have to realize that we live in a country with a two-party system and a winner-take-all electoral college. If you’re not helping your candidate, you’re helping the opponent.

    • spider
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      we live in a country with a two-party system

      Although they’re perpetually marginalized, we do have third-party candidates.

      Edit: Amusing how people downvote a neutral, factual statement.

      • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        They’ll never have a chance in a winner-take-all electoral college system.

      • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        You’ll never convince 160 million people to vote 3rd party. So a vote for 3rd party is a vote for the most popular of the 2 candidates.

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Ελληνικά
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          No, a vote 3rd party is a vote against your most tolerable of the two viable candidates.

        • pedalmore@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          The key here is that it’s a vote for the most popular of the 2 candidates based on the votes of who bothered to vote for them specifically, then further butchered via the EC. It’s a smaller, different pool of people that may elect someone that the actual majority prefer less, because part of the actual majority decided to play a different game entirely.