Funny, and promoting the wrong idea. “Tactical voting” is the bane of democracy. If you’re against “third parties” you are, fundamentally, against choice and thus democracy.
And if you’re adamant you are not, in fact, against democracy, then you must be trying your best to destroy the two-patwo-party system that corrupts democracy in the USA, right? And what better way to do that than to make third party options viable?
The issue is that voting for third parties doesn’t make third parties viable in first-past-the-post systems. I, for example, would love if my country had a diverse parliament, but I continue to vote for the saner major party in my constituency because if votes are split between them and the party I’d really like to be in power, then neither of them will be.
Tactical voting is the symptom of two party systems, not the cause.
You’re right, the right wing parties will do better
Is that the change you were going for?
The way you get to positive results is through grassroots movements (including within major parties), protest, and voting in a way that gets you as close to a good outcome as possible. Mamdani’s victory is a glowing example of that strategy working.
Right wing parties won’t do better don’t vote for them.
And no you can never move things closer to a multiparty system by voting for one of the two party system candidates. They benefit from that system why would they give up their power like that?
You don’t make third parties viable by voting for them, though. You do so by pushing for electoral reform and systems like score voting, proportional representation, or MP
You do both. Nader could’ve been a real way out of this fucked up mess we still call the USA, had he not endlessly been pushed side to calls of “too soon, we need to stay focused”. End result is all this tactical voting turned out to be a great tactic for the right.
Funny, and promoting the wrong idea. “Tactical voting” is the bane of democracy. If you’re against “third parties” you are, fundamentally, against choice and thus democracy.
And if you’re adamant you are not, in fact, against democracy, then you must be trying your best to destroy the two-patwo-party system that corrupts democracy in the USA, right? And what better way to do that than to make third party options viable?
The issue is that voting for third parties doesn’t make third parties viable in first-past-the-post systems. I, for example, would love if my country had a diverse parliament, but I continue to vote for the saner major party in my constituency because if votes are split between them and the party I’d really like to be in power, then neither of them will be.
Tactical voting is the symptom of two party systems, not the cause.
Nothing will change if you keep voting for one of the main two.
Nothing will change if the only thing you do is vote.
True.
Nothing will change if throwing away a vote allows fascist pigs that are glad to stamp out rebellion to take power.
Is genocide fascist?
You’re right, the right wing parties will do better
Is that the change you were going for?
The way you get to positive results is through grassroots movements (including within major parties), protest, and voting in a way that gets you as close to a good outcome as possible. Mamdani’s victory is a glowing example of that strategy working.
Right wing parties won’t do better don’t vote for them.
And no you can never move things closer to a multiparty system by voting for one of the two party system candidates. They benefit from that system why would they give up their power like that?
You don’t make third parties viable by voting for them, though. You do so by pushing for electoral reform and systems like score voting, proportional representation, or MP
You do both. Nader could’ve been a real way out of this fucked up mess we still call the USA, had he not endlessly been pushed side to calls of “too soon, we need to stay focused”. End result is all this tactical voting turned out to be a great tactic for the right.