Why just voting for 'the lesser evil' is so frustrating...

[AJMD429]

.
...too many like this puke wind up in power...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/0 ... stigation/

Not to mention McConnell and Romney and so on....

[Old Savage]

So what is your solution?

[AJMD429]

.
Elections should allow voters to pick more than one candidate.
That is the only way to pull in a third party without the 'thrown-away vote' risk.

[Old Savage]

Third parties have never worked here. It’s like splitting the difference, 44 Mag - 357 Mag … 41 Mag never went anywhere. Like Yogi Berra said, when you come to the fork in the road, take it. Here the right and left control the energy. The middle ground which decides is left with some contorted view like Libertarians.

[jeepnik]

Sadly, in this state we don’t even have a two party system. Where once the top republican and top democrat from the primary election faced each other in the general election this no longer happens. Now the top two, regardless of party are in the general.

This might sound good in theory but now we often have two people from the same party facing off. And how did we get here? The idiots voted for it.

[AJMD429]

.
'Third' parties aren't necessarily 'middle of the road' compromise parties, plus there is more than one dimension to politics, at least if there are more than two parties.

Even in the one-dimensiinal world we are floundering in, consider that if 'A' is 100% 'conservative' and 'Z' is 100% 'liberal', we typically get a Democrat around the letter 'W'. So along comes a Republican and their best way to win is NOT to be an 'A' - but to be a 'V'. That way they get the most votes because they capture the 'moderates' that a candidate scoring 'A' or even 'G' would lose.

However if THREE candidates were running and we could vote for two, I'd vote for BOTH the 'G' (who I really want to win) and possibly the 'V' just to be sure the 'W' doesn't win.

So the way to avoid the 'moderate' lesser-evil is simply to allow voters to vote for any candidate they'd be ok with, vs just one.

[Old Savage]

Here is what really happens. If there are three candidates the two most alike lose. The third parties that are more left or right of the two majors lose. And they take some votes from the R or D. It is a losing premise here in the US taken by those who do not get the reality of politics here. They just seem to want to assuage their own intellect/conscious.

I know that you swing to practicality in the end.

[Old Savage]

Let me add this, I am probably best pegged I suppose as a constitutional conservative and have never seen any third party that makes any practical sense.

[AJMD429]

Here is what really happens. If there are three candidates the two most alike lose. The third parties that are more left or right of the two majors lose. And they take some votes from the R or D. It is a losing premise here in the US taken by those who do not get the reality of politics here. They just seem to want to assuage their own intellect/conscious.

I know that you swing to practicality in the end.

I think what you're saying is correct, IF there is only one candidate you can vote for. Voting for more than one changes the dynamics quite a bit. Nobody "takes votes" from R or D if you can vote for more than one candidate. It's not exactly a new thing we do it all the time for County elections.

Let me add this, I am probably best pegged I suppose as a constitutional conservative and have never seen any third party that makes any practical sense.

The problem is we live in a reality where often neither the 'first' or 'second' party makes any practical sense. That's why we have all these fake Republicans that are destroying the country by cooperating with the Democrats.

Introducing 'third' parties causes all sorts of problems when you can only vote for one candidate, but it solves all sorts of problems when you can vote for more than one.

The concept I'm supporting isn't the presence of a third party, it's the ability to vote for more than one candidate. That's an entirely different dynamic.

[Old Savage]

I do not believe you are correct. Show me an example.

[AJMD429]

.
It's simple.

My brother would vote for ANYONE to avoid Romney getting elected. He doesn't like Hillary but would vote for her as his 'lesser evil'. He likes Ron Paul, and would actually prefer Ron Paul, but hesitates to "throw his vote away" so he votes Hillary.

I would vote for ANYONE to avoid Hillary getting elected. I might not like Romney but he'd be my 'lesser evil'. I prefer Ron Paul to either, but wouldn't want to "throw my vote away" so I'll vote Romney.

We get Hillary or Romney...

Under a vote-for-more-than-one-candidate, my brother would vote for who he would be ok with, so he'd vote his preference Paul, but also vote Hillary just in case (so he doesn't have to 'throw his vote away' and risk a Republican winning and killing grandma and all the baby seals). I'd vote for Paul and Romney for the same reason; to avoid Hillary winning and banning guns.

Paul wins...

Now if you want to wade out in the weeds and get distracted by whether Paul is better than Romney we can do that dance, but the point isn't who we use as examples, it's the logic and math. Put Trump in place of Paul and Desantis in place of Romney, or whatever names you wish. The whole point is to have a system where you can vote in a way to both support your favorite candidate AND block the 'worse evil' - i.e. NOT "waste a vote".

I remain to be convinced our vote-for-ONLY-the-lesser-evil system is better than one where you DON'T have to risk "wasting a vote" if there are more than two candidates.

[piller]

We end up now with the more evil of the two lesser humans. If we could break big media's stranglehold on information, then real elections might occur.

[Old Savage]

I suppose I could invent a fantasy world but we are in this one.

[piller]

It seems that some folks are afraid that the twitter stranglehold has been broken. One step at a time.