The only reason its as ineffective as it is now is because of people like you spend a ridiculous amount of time and effort shaming those who might consider it.
Saying a third party couldn’t win is factually incorrect, yet its a common phrase on here isn’t it.
Only once has a third party candidate made much progress, and Perot was right-wing/libertarian. You can’t skip right to a third party presidential candidate without making progress with that party locally first, then in Congress. That just how this system works. You can pretend that enough people will spontaneously vote for your same third party candidate, but that’s a demonstrably a fantasy. You can claim that a vote reflects on your own morality rather than something strategic and practical, but that’s a view pushed by people hoping to take advantage of youth vanity and split the vote.
You can’t skip right to a third party presidential candidate without making progress with that party locally first
I swear to God. It’s like trying to tell a child you can’t have ice cream because you’re stranded on a desert island and they KEEP INSISTING that they want ice cream.
It’s infuriating.
Like, it isn’t complicated. You can’t start at the beginning of a board game, roll a 6, and move your piece 57 spaces to the end and win. That’s impossible.
It’s wild how many Americans exist outside reality.
This absolutely can happen, but its not popular in America. Americans just want to vote for their team, at least the majority of them.
And your example is absurd, Trump himself skipped the entire game, and then took over one of the parties.
The only wild thing here is that you lack any creative thought to find a better solution than to vote for democrats and hope the country doesn’t fall apart by the time you pass away.
And theoretically all humans can live in peace and harmony with one another. Doesn’t mean it’s happening.
Trump himself skipped the entire game
Yeah, but he ran as the candidate for one of the two main parties. That is in no way equivalent to a 3rd party presidential candidate winning. Your comparison is absurd.
The only wild thing here is that you lack any creative thought to find a better solution
My child. The only solution you’ve indicated is voting 3rd party, which I’ve clearly explained to you is not a viable option. That isn’t an opinion. It’s a fact. It’s a fact because no 3rd party has any influence. It’s a fact because the most popular 3rd party candidate can’t even break 1% of the votes.
Why do you choose to live in a fantasy? Is real life just too hard?
No, they’re right - the Constitution says the person who receives the most votes is President. With the added fuckery of the Slaver’s College, third parties have an unbelievably hard lift to get anywhere close to President.
It’s just not going to happen without a huge base, and there isn’t one. There never is. Just stunt candidates ripping people off for fun & profit.
Sort of, probability isn’t a set thing, and everyone analyzes it differently. Part of the reason it seems so improbable is because people keep saying it is.
The reality is though that the majority want either a republican or democrat, because a majority think America is a good country that just needs a little bit better leadership. I disagree with that assessment, and I won’t vote D or R again.
Part of the reason it seems so improbable is because people keep saying it is.
It’s improbable is because no grassroots movement has been able to fund enough advertisements to run a successful 3rd party run. It’s a 2 party system because of money; straight up. Money has to be used to reach votes in hard to reach places across all 50+ states that have varying tax laws. Not impossible, but over the 250+ years of elections (or whatever) it hasn’t been done.
It’s improbable because voting 3rd party also hopes that other folx agree with the 3rd party and will also vote. Voting 3rd party is throwing away your vote in a system that has been binary thus far. If the choices are voting for a literal Nazi or voting for a Corporate Puppet, and your and your friends vote 3rd party, that historically gives a better chance to either of the other 2 candidates winning, with the Nazi candidate benefiting the most.
There’s a lot of people in America; it’s a large piechart.
Hmm maybe a general strike would help then. I was going to say we should stop associating and giving our money to greedy capitalists, but thats a general strike so let’s so that.
We’ll need to convince the folx to stop subscribing to Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, etc. and stop ordering their groceries from Walmart and Target. It’s quite a push.
Saying a third party couldn’t win is factually incorrect
Oh, you like facts?
Here’s one.
In the 2024 election the 3rd party presidential candidate with the most votes only got 0.5% of the total votes cast.
So it is FACTUALLY CORRECT to state a 3rd party can’t win the presidency.
Like, what do you not grasp here? No 3rd party has done the work to become nationally viable. No 3rd party even has a SINGLE member in Congress. It is ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a 3rd party candidate to win the presidency anytime in the remotely near future. It would take YEARS and YEARS for a 3rd party to become a household name and get members in Congress and actually have a shot at the presidency.
Therefore, voting for a 3rd party candidate for president is akin to wiping your ass with your ballot, smelling it and thinking it smells nice, then flushing it down the toilet.
I wouldn’t advocate for not voting, voting third party would be my advice if you don’t want to personally get involved in politics.
Hope that advice only applies to local/state elections, cuz voting 3rd party for president is about as useful as an asshole on your elbow.
The only reason its as ineffective as it is now is because of people like you spend a ridiculous amount of time and effort shaming those who might consider it.
Saying a third party couldn’t win is factually incorrect, yet its a common phrase on here isn’t it.
Only once has a third party candidate made much progress, and Perot was right-wing/libertarian. You can’t skip right to a third party presidential candidate without making progress with that party locally first, then in Congress. That just how this system works. You can pretend that enough people will spontaneously vote for your same third party candidate, but that’s a demonstrably a fantasy. You can claim that a vote reflects on your own morality rather than something strategic and practical, but that’s a view pushed by people hoping to take advantage of youth vanity and split the vote.
I swear to God. It’s like trying to tell a child you can’t have ice cream because you’re stranded on a desert island and they KEEP INSISTING that they want ice cream.
It’s infuriating.
Like, it isn’t complicated. You can’t start at the beginning of a board game, roll a 6, and move your piece 57 spaces to the end and win. That’s impossible.
It’s wild how many Americans exist outside reality.
This absolutely can happen, but its not popular in America. Americans just want to vote for their team, at least the majority of them.
And your example is absurd, Trump himself skipped the entire game, and then took over one of the parties.
The only wild thing here is that you lack any creative thought to find a better solution than to vote for democrats and hope the country doesn’t fall apart by the time you pass away.
“Not popular” literally means it won’t happen, you are restating my point.
You know Trump ran in 2000, right? And that he isn’t a third-party candidate?
If you want to hijack the Democrats like Trump hijacked the Republicans, that’s a good strategy!
Give me a creative solution that understands the system, and the math involved, and I’m entirely on board. But wishing isn’t enough.
And theoretically all humans can live in peace and harmony with one another. Doesn’t mean it’s happening.
Yeah, but he ran as the candidate for one of the two main parties. That is in no way equivalent to a 3rd party presidential candidate winning. Your comparison is absurd.
My child. The only solution you’ve indicated is voting 3rd party, which I’ve clearly explained to you is not a viable option. That isn’t an opinion. It’s a fact. It’s a fact because no 3rd party has any influence. It’s a fact because the most popular 3rd party candidate can’t even break 1% of the votes.
Why do you choose to live in a fantasy? Is real life just too hard?
Got a better plan?
No, they’re right - the Constitution says the person who receives the most votes is President. With the added fuckery of the Slaver’s College, third parties have an unbelievably hard lift to get anywhere close to President.
It’s just not going to happen without a huge base, and there isn’t one. There never is. Just stunt candidates ripping people off for fun & profit.
The only way to get to huge is through small.
Woah. That’s, like . . . true.
I guess we should keep voting for the people who are taking advantage of everyone else then.
As everyone is trying to point out, not voting against them also works.
Factually incorrect but improbable none-the-less.
Sort of, probability isn’t a set thing, and everyone analyzes it differently. Part of the reason it seems so improbable is because people keep saying it is.
The reality is though that the majority want either a republican or democrat, because a majority think America is a good country that just needs a little bit better leadership. I disagree with that assessment, and I won’t vote D or R again.
It’s improbable is because no grassroots movement has been able to fund enough advertisements to run a successful 3rd party run. It’s a 2 party system because of money; straight up. Money has to be used to reach votes in hard to reach places across all 50+ states that have varying tax laws. Not impossible, but over the 250+ years of elections (or whatever) it hasn’t been done.
It’s improbable because voting 3rd party also hopes that other folx agree with the 3rd party and will also vote. Voting 3rd party is throwing away your vote in a system that has been binary thus far. If the choices are voting for a literal Nazi or voting for a Corporate Puppet, and your and your friends vote 3rd party, that historically gives a better chance to either of the other 2 candidates winning, with the Nazi candidate benefiting the most.
There’s a lot of people in America; it’s a large piechart.
Hmm maybe a general strike would help then. I was going to say we should stop associating and giving our money to greedy capitalists, but thats a general strike so let’s so that.
We’ll need to convince the folx to stop subscribing to Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, etc. and stop ordering their groceries from Walmart and Target. It’s quite a push.
You sound like a child trying to come to grips with reality and failing. It’s honestly pretty sad.
Well you really told me.
Oh, you like facts?
Here’s one.
In the 2024 election the 3rd party presidential candidate with the most votes only got 0.5% of the total votes cast.
So it is FACTUALLY CORRECT to state a 3rd party can’t win the presidency.
Like, what do you not grasp here? No 3rd party has done the work to become nationally viable. No 3rd party even has a SINGLE member in Congress. It is ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a 3rd party candidate to win the presidency anytime in the remotely near future. It would take YEARS and YEARS for a 3rd party to become a household name and get members in Congress and actually have a shot at the presidency.
Therefore, voting for a 3rd party candidate for president is akin to wiping your ass with your ballot, smelling it and thinking it smells nice, then flushing it down the toilet.
Well, if we can’t even agree what a fact is, what’s the point of debating this?
Are you stupid?
Jill Stein got 0.5% of the votes. Proving a 3rd party can’t even come close to winning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#Results
Sure but that’s a different argument. I think people call that “moving the goal posts” or something.