🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱's posts Post Back to profile

> 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).

Like 28 March at 0:05 | Open on qoto.org

4 comments

Louis Ingenthron

@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.

28 March at 0:11 | Open on qoto.org

🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

@LouisIngenthron

> That 3% is an average driven entirely by major outliers.

So? Its still the reality chance of it happening, 0 is not. Full stop.

> 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.

Yup, and the chance of those conditions existing in any one year, and you personally making a significant impact to allow that to happen is statistically **hugely** more likely if you vote for a third party than a primary. Primary the chance of your vote making a difference is many orders of magnitude lower than when voting for a third party.

So again regardless of who wins, why would anyone bother to vote for a third party when their vote makes no difference at all? When with a third party it does, at many orders of magnitude higher. Isnt the point of voting to make a positive difference?

@LouisIngenthron

> That 3% is an average driven entirely by major outliers.

So? Its still the reality chance of it happening, 0 is not. Full stop.

> 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.

Expand text...

28 March at 0:16 | Open on qoto.org

Louis Ingenthron

@freemo
> So? Its still the reality chance of it happening, 0 is not. Full stop.

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.

28 March at 0:23 | Open on qoto.org

🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

@LouisIngenthron Incorrect.. in fact not only are the factors present (a great deal of dissasifaction with major parties, and each party acting acts its majorieis primary ideals and interests)... but more importantly as I've covered before third-party take overs always happen suddenly and unexpectedly. They were **always** <1% support before the election and switch to a majority support over the course of only a single election.

> No, it's to reduce harm. And by throwing away your vote for an impossible candidate, you give up your opportunity to reduce harm.

How can you reduce harm if your vote has absolutely no impact on the outcome of any kind? Cant reduce harm if your screaming into the wind doing nothing.

Expand text...

28 March at 0:26 | Open on qoto.org