Gregory's Server@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.
|
10 comments
 @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. |
@LouisIngenthron
> The significance of a vote for a candidate that cannot win is zero.
That isnt the reality, and is a oversimplification to game the system.
You can argue it has a much LOWER chance of winning. but not 0... Based on historical data the chance of a third-party candidate winning an election or coming in second place (and thus becoming a primary party in the future) in any one year is ~7% , something like 3% for the chance of actually winning.
That isnt 0, it is low. But pushing for something with a low chance, that is far better for everyone, and having 50x the impact in doing so Is a very good trade IMO.
Also, what is the point of voting for a primary candidate when your chance of your vote having **any** meaning at all is 0.00000001%.. not voting would have no impact of any kind, so why bother, where voting third party has a 50x impact and even when loosing that impact has quantifiable gains (unlike with the major party).
@LouisIngenthron
> The significance of a vote for a candidate that cannot win is zero.
That isnt the reality, and is a oversimplification to game the system.
You can argue it has a much LOWER chance of winning. but not 0... Based on historical data the chance of a third-party candidate winning an election or coming in second place (and thus becoming a primary party in the future) in any one year is ~7% , something like 3% for the chance of actually winning.