Gregory's Server@freemo Why even leave the house to vote then?
|
50 comments
 @freemo The significance of a vote for a candidate that cannot win is zero. So, a vote for one of the main parties is, by definition, more significant, even if it's literally one in a hundred million. @freemo That 3% is an average driven entirely by major outliers. The bottom line is, without the right combination of external conditions in place, the possibility of a third party finishing first in a FPTP system is effectively zero. Primaries have different systems, but those that are FPTP do have the exact same dynamics I described above. @freemo In a vacuum, sure. But in the real world, we can look around and see that those external factors are not present this year. > Isnt the point of voting to make a positive difference? No, it's to reduce harm. And by throwing away your vote for an impossible candidate, you give up your opportunity to reduce harm. @LouisIngenthron @freemo So, by definition, if the major parties are not ok, the world is doomed and nothing should be done?  When Stalin and Hitler are up for election make sure you keep voting for Stalin, its the only way to make things better! @LouisIngenthron @freemo So my relatives who live in states where polls say Biden has no better chance of winning than a third party candidate should vote for Trump because "The significance of a vote for a candidate that cannot win is zero"? @LouisIngenthron @freemo You are basically saying if the general environment says something, you cannot even try to resist. The narrative told is not automatically true. Sometimes, you just live in a world of lies. Embrace it. Call the people attacking you enemies. They cannot do any worse to you than they already do.  @freemo @LouisIngenthron close races don't always happen but they're not that uncommon either. Cook County IL is still waiting to find out the winner of the State's Attorney primary that's basically going to decide the next office holder. There are regularly significant races won by a single vote both in primaries and in general elections, and in many places 'safe' districts mean that the primary is what decides things. Name a single **presidential** race where a single vote from anyone ever in the USA has made a difference in the outcome? That has literally never happened and statistically if the USA lasted for ever that would never happen, the universe would probably die of heat death first. @freemo @LouisIngenthron presidential races aren't all that matters, and you'd need a race that was close enough electorally that a single state flipping would flip the electoral college AND where any of the states with enough electoral votes were very close. I can give you one example you should be well aware of with a *very* slim margin (that ended up not mattering because of other highly questionable decisions). Want to take a guess first? @freemo @LouisIngenthron Not to forget gerrymandering. So sorry to see what you have to deal with. @freemo @LouisIngenthron You do realize you are arguing for anarchy and human cooperation here? Over people having power over others? Agreeing would mean just that, only talking to each other free of any state or authority could help. Anarchy as a distilled idea would not have voting. I think you are thinking of libertarianism not anarchy. Yes I realize I lean most strongly towards libertarianism. Human cooperation is just a fancy word for democracy, which I also approve. Ideas cant be coopted.. thats like saying "being nice has been coopted by people trying to pretend to be nice by being evil, so you shouldnt proclaim you are nice!"... It makes no sense, you cant coopt ideas, full stop. @freemo @LouisIngenthron Free speech means torturing turtles! Now, what did i just do? Would this mean anything if 90% of people would associate torturing turtles with free speach? Is what i just did different from what i described as coopting? And if you then say "free speech has been coopted by turtle torturers" would be you perpetuating their agenda. @freemo @LouisIngenthron Exactly. Speaking lies has an effect. Which is why free speech and communication are important. Clear up the lies. They will not go away on their own. Of course speaking lies has an effect. Which is why you shouldnt perpetuate those lies and give them power by claiming such lies coopt an ideology. In doing so is what causes those lies to coopt the ideology. By not speaking of it and let it be ignored those ideas dont get spread. @freemo @LouisIngenthron So you say ignoring lies is more powerful than clearing up what you meant, to specify? @freemo @LouisIngenthron You are right in the arena you set, but i was talking about lies that are in circulation for a long time - completely different thing. The effect is just as relevant after they have been in circulation a long time. Afterall the goal is to reverse those lies and seek a state of truth again no matter how far gone it may be... You only do that by dismissing the lies, not amplifying them, and amplifying the truth to restore sanity. @freemo @LouisIngenthron The difference is if it is established, ignoring it will not make it go away anymore. You need to take action or accept it then. @freemo @LouisIngenthron If what you say was true, there wouls still be a need to establish the counter narrative, thus a need to discuss it. No all you need to do is the exact thing that got the lies established... you scream and yell and talk about the truth, and dont put any attention on the lies... Let the truth be as notable, if not more notable, than the lies... thats all. @freemo @LouisIngenthron If i was able to do that, it would not be a problem - what exactly do you propose to do to make the truth more notable? @freemo @LouisIngenthron Look, all i mean to say is anarchy means people working together. As soon as anyone asserts dominance, it is not anarchy anymore. It's in the definition... No anarchy doesnt mean people working together.. it means the people who want to work together will, the people who want to rape kill and still and cause chaos also will. Anarchy is just capitalism in ideologically pure form (unregulated markets to the extreme) and nothing else. Libertarianism, which is not anarchy, is the only thing that means working together while allowing the maximum individual freedom. @freemo @LouisIngenthron I shall take your advice and not perpetuate this. Glad to hear it, and honestly I can probably due to take my own advice on this more as well @freemo @LouisIngenthron We all struggle. It's a good thing. Only bad thing i see is probably something we would disagree on. People maximizing a number without regard to its significance. No we agree on that. My solution is to create a system where the significance of the number becomes more impactful and known so as to ensure there is strong penalties for anyone who blindly increases the number without understanding its significance @freemo @LouisIngenthron You are not clear on what the number is. The number i see is money. I think this is misleading and not fulfilling. One could try to create a number on human fulfillment. I have not seen anyone really try. I was perfectly clear on what the number is and knew before you said it what you meant... You arent exactly subtle with your opinions dude :) lol @freemo @LouisIngenthron I misht not be sububtle, but you sure are. I still have no idea what number you mean. It it was money, you would be stupid, as that is what i talked about. You are not stupid, so what is it? Very confused right now. I am not just subtle I am damn cryptic, and that is intentional. Telling people what I think wont do much good... leading people ona journey together where what I think is discovered through question, inquiry, and debate will. The problem is this requires the active contribution of the other party which rarely is the case as most people are looking to win, not explore. @freemo @LouisIngenthron A generally good idea, but i think we lost the plot a bit here ^^ The idea that there was ever a plot to begin with is the illusion :) The only plot here was to learn something, and I'd say we did that quite nicely. @freemo @LouisIngenthron It was a nice bout to be had. I searched for trolls on federated, i ended up bouting you directly. Probably better that way, the trolls get boring quickly with their obvious insecurities. Until another day, it was nice! @freemo @LouisIngenthron You are not a boring troll, i will give you that. There is a reason i talk to you, as i suspect there is a reason you talk to me. @LouisIngenthron @freemo Are you saying all hope is lost and people should stop putting any hope in voting? @admitsWrongIfProven If they're voting for a third party, then yes. Our system wasn't built for that. |
@LouisIngenthron
I would say the same about voting for a major party. In not a single election would your vote have changed the outcome, ever. So why do it?
Moreover, if we just look at the significance of your vote, you are a larger percentage of the vote when voting for a third party than when voting for a primary party. Something on the order of 50x **more** impactful when voting for a third party than a primary party in percentage of the vote you account for.
Moreover while not winning or winning for a primary has little effect from your vote, with a third party even loosing has a positive outcome. By swinging the % higher (which you do wtih 50x more effect) you are sending a message even when you loose by raising the % enabling third-party more likely access, exposure, and chance to win in the future.
@LouisIngenthron
I would say the same about voting for a major party. In not a single election would your vote have changed the outcome, ever. So why do it?
Moreover, if we just look at the significance of your vote, you are a larger percentage of the vote when voting for a third party than when voting for a primary party. Something on the order of 50x **more** impactful when voting for a third party than a primary party in percentage of the vote you account for.