Agreed on the trolley scenario, but that’s not exactly analogous. I’ll try to make an analogy that extrapolates the principle of our current scenario to illustrate what I’m getting at.
Imagine there are 3 candidates, two major parties and a third party. Both candidates in the major parties want to nuke the planet to establish an American world government. Our guy wants to nuke 6 billion people, their guy wants to nuke 7 billion people. Polls show that the third party candidate has the same chance of winning as polls in the 2024 U.S election show. The third party candidate is against dropping nukes on the planet to establish a global America.
Do you vote for the one who wants to nuke 6 billion people as a form of harm reduction? Or is there some line that a candidate/party can cross that makes voting third party the best option, despite how unlikely they’ll win?
I’ve voted third party before; it’s a fairly meaningless gesture at best, letting the trolley run over five people while still holding the lever at worst. Imo, you’re looking at the wrong thing here. In a FPTP election system, you’re always going to end up with a two-party duopoly with voters constantly trying to play harm reduction. If you want to have a meaningful impact at the ballot box- to have our third party votes actually count for something, it requires addressing the voting system that creates these conditions. Ranked Choice Voting/ STV movements are growing in the US; I plan on joining the one in California, I suggest you do the same thing.
I understand your sentiment, but I’m curious if you’ll actually commit to the principle you are espousing. Would you actually vote for a candidate that wants to bomb “only” 6 billion people over 7 billion, instead of “throwing away” your vote for someone who doesn’t want to nuke the planet?
I came back to say that your assertion about a two party system never arriving at a “too extreme” position is 100% correct. That’s why it needs to be done away with.
Agreed on the trolley scenario, but that’s not exactly analogous. I’ll try to make an analogy that extrapolates the principle of our current scenario to illustrate what I’m getting at.
Imagine there are 3 candidates, two major parties and a third party. Both candidates in the major parties want to nuke the planet to establish an American world government. Our guy wants to nuke 6 billion people, their guy wants to nuke 7 billion people. Polls show that the third party candidate has the same chance of winning as polls in the 2024 U.S election show. The third party candidate is against dropping nukes on the planet to establish a global America.
Do you vote for the one who wants to nuke 6 billion people as a form of harm reduction? Or is there some line that a candidate/party can cross that makes voting third party the best option, despite how unlikely they’ll win?
I’ve voted third party before; it’s a fairly meaningless gesture at best, letting the trolley run over five people while still holding the lever at worst. Imo, you’re looking at the wrong thing here. In a FPTP election system, you’re always going to end up with a two-party duopoly with voters constantly trying to play harm reduction. If you want to have a meaningful impact at the ballot box- to have our third party votes actually count for something, it requires addressing the voting system that creates these conditions. Ranked Choice Voting/ STV movements are growing in the US; I plan on joining the one in California, I suggest you do the same thing.
I understand your sentiment, but I’m curious if you’ll actually commit to the principle you are espousing. Would you actually vote for a candidate that wants to bomb “only” 6 billion people over 7 billion, instead of “throwing away” your vote for someone who doesn’t want to nuke the planet?
I came back to say that your assertion about a two party system never arriving at a “too extreme” position is 100% correct. That’s why it needs to be done away with.