• kescusay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Missed my point. No one’s disputing the fact that the electoral college sucks. But not voting for the Democrat 100% guarantees the Republican wins.

      Each state apportions its electors using that state’s popular vote. It’s stupid, and gives backwards, rural voters more electoral power than they should have, but that doesn’t mean you have none at all.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wow…no it does not. How you come to the conclusion that a vote for anyone but a dem magically allows the repub to win is just false.

        • kescusay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Math. That’s how I come to that conclusion. In any state that grants all its electors to one candidate who wins a plurality or more of the votes in that state (which is most of them) this is how it works:

          Say you’ve got two major parties, the Kicking Puppies (KP) party and the Snuggling Puppies (SP) party. Normally, the snugglers always win except for in that one weird county we don’t like to talk about. Then along comes a new party: The Snuggling Kittens (SK) party. They’re a small party, but they work tirelessly to pull votes… from the SPs. I mean, it’s not like the KPs are going to vote for any snuggling party, right?

          So come election time, the results look like this:

          • Kicking Puppies: 36%
          • Snuggling Puppies: 35%
          • Snuggling Kittens: 29%

          By a clear, resounding majority, the state does not want to start kicking puppies. Yet with our current election system, the rise of the kitten snugglers has resulted in the puppies getting kicked.

          The problem is that mostly we have first-past-the-post and winner-take-all elections. Until that changes, small parties are always going to be spoilers for whichever major party most closely aligns with them politically. Does it suck? Of course. But that’s just the mathematical reality. Any vote going to a party candidate who cannot possibly win is one less vote for the one who can.

          Until we change the system and start using something like ranked-choice or STAR voting, this is what we’re stuck with.

          And Republicans know that, which is why it’s so common to find out that funding for the Green party in the United States is coming from Republicans. They’re well aware of the spoiler effect that can only exists because of our fucked system.

          Now you’re aware of it, too.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            the democrats fund republicans too. clinton bolstered trumps first primary campaign.

            i don’t want to support the democrats or the republicans. so i’m going to vote green.

            it’s my understanding that the fines for vote-sellig are $5000 in my state and the same at the federal level. for $20000 i’ll vote for your preferred candidate in a swing state.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No it does not. I wouldn’t vote for the Democrats anyways. So how again does my non vote exactly vote magically for the Republicans.

        • kescusay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, like I said earlier, you’re removing your own voice from politics because you have the luxury of ideological purity. I don’t. I have kids who actually have to live in this world. I can’t let outright evil scumbags who want my kids dead win just because their most viable opponents aren’t perfect.

          But you’re apparently fine with that.

            • kescusay@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are you kidding me? The Republican party as a whole wants LGBTQ+ kids - like both of mine - shoved back in the closet, which means suicide for lots of them, especially trans kids who are denied gender-affirming health care.

              Trans kids like my son.

              I can’t afford to pretend to moral superiority by throwing my vote away on candidates who will never win. I have to vote for the ones who can win and won’t be a danger to my kids.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Fair enough, I just don’t see the Dems doing much for LGBTQ+ rights. Hell they didn’t support same sex marriage until term 2 Obama. And you know Biden doesn’t.

                What we really need is RCV, so we can actually get better candidates

                • kescusay@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The official party platform has support for LGBTQ+ rights in it now,1 it was Biden who convinced Obama to get on board with it,2 and in states where Republicans are leading crusades to dehumanize LGBTQ+ people, it’s Democrats who are suing to stop them.

                  Have you considered the possibility you’re wrong about the Democrats?

                  I do agree with you that we need ranked choice voting. But until we have it, I don’t really have the choice to vote for a third-party candidate who cannot win. I have to use my vote in the system we have now to support the candidate who can.


                  1: You can read it for yourself here: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2020-democratic-party-platform. Search for “LGBTQ”. There’s an entire section on protecting healthcare services for LGBTQ+ people.

                  2: I love the absurd (in retrospect) tone of the articles at the time, like this one. It was all, “Biden is creating a problem for Obama by supporting gay marriage.” Biden was ahead of his time by recognizing it was not only the right thing to do, but also a political winner, as the majority of the country had gotten over its hangups.

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No I’m not wrong about them. They’re still big busyness war hawks and still are all about corps. Along with no single payer still, and still demonize drug users. Biden still says he’s hard on crime, which is pushing for locking up non violent drug offenders while letting violent criminals out. This isn’t news.

                    I can be just as pissed with the Dems as I can the repubs. Both want to take my rights away and further their control. Neither is ok with me.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know exactly how it works. I was replying on why your vote doesn’t matter much with the electoral college in place. It’s designed to give rural states as much a voice as larger city style states. But ok tell me again how Hillary winning the popular vote got her elected.