you will see that the issue is the provability of whether so-called third parties can achieve anything, and whether it’s provable that voting for them has supported a “greater evil”. i have demonstrated the success of so-called third parties, and its prima facie impossible to prove a counterfactual.
I have proved both of these things. Both With Nader and Perot, as well as showing the difference in actual progressive advancements between third-parties in Democrats is so great that there is little point in supporting a third-party — especially when the FPTP system mathematically goes against them.
But any time you want to make a bet a 3rd-party candidate winning versus one of the two primary parties, I’ll happily take that bet on money.
It’s a fact that 3rd-party lose universally all of their elections while often spoiling elections for the primary party that most-closely shares their interests. This is not a counter-factual; this is not Ad Ignorantiam.
It’s a fact that 3rd-party lose universally all of their elections while often spoiling elections for the primary party that most-closely shares their interests.
no it’s not. only a single counterexample is necessary to disprove this. but that’s not even what’s at issue here. what’s at issue is what the greater evil would have been. we cannot know what the losers of elections would have done had they won.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/9218081
you will see that the issue is the provability of whether so-called third parties can achieve anything, and whether it’s provable that voting for them has supported a “greater evil”. i have demonstrated the success of so-called third parties, and its prima facie impossible to prove a counterfactual.
I have proved both of these things. Both With Nader and Perot, as well as showing the difference in actual progressive advancements between third-parties in Democrats is so great that there is little point in supporting a third-party — especially when the FPTP system mathematically goes against them.
But any time you want to make a bet a 3rd-party candidate winning versus one of the two primary parties, I’ll happily take that bet on money.
this is a red herring and doesn’t address the substance of our disagreement at all
It’s not really a red-herring; it’s simply putting money where your mouth is.
It’s putting weight behind your words, and it proves my point.
it’s unrelated to the crux of the argument. it’s a distraction.
you literally cannot prove a counterfactual, so claiming you have reeks of intellectual dishonesty
It’s a fact that 3rd-party lose universally all of their elections while often spoiling elections for the primary party that most-closely shares their interests. This is not a counter-factual; this is not Ad Ignorantiam.
no it’s not. only a single counterexample is necessary to disprove this. but that’s not even what’s at issue here. what’s at issue is what the greater evil would have been. we cannot know what the losers of elections would have done had they won.