• ArchRecord@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Our voting system fundamentally doesn’t allow for third parties to win the vote.

    Even if we said “vote for a third party, there’s a statistically significant chance they might win!” this wouldn’t fix the issue, because Jill Stein doesn’t take votes from both sides equally.

    Jill Stein leans left, which means people who are otherwise Democrat voters are going to be the largest demographic voting for her.

    Our voting system is first past the post, which means this will actually decrease the chance of a left-leaning victory.

    Let’s say Dems get 55% of the vote without Jill Stein, and Reps get 45%. Democrats win.

    Then, we add in Jill Stein. A significant amount of voters switch over, even some Republicans. (which, in reality, would probably not at all, because Jill Stein’s policies are even further from their beliefs than even the Democrats are)

    Dems get 35% of the vote. Reps get 40% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 25%. Democrats & Jill Stein lose, Republicans win.

    If Jill Stein were entirely impartial, and took votes equally from each side, then we could have a vote like…

    Dems get 45% of the vote. Reps get 35% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 20% of the vote. Democrats win in the same way they would have whether or not there was a third party.

    The issue is that, obviously, Jill Stein isn’t taking equal parts of the vote, so this inevitably just reduces votes for Democrats, without reducing votes for Republicans.

    It’s not an ideal system, (which is why we should advocate for Instant-Runoff or Rated voting) but it’s the option that will lead to the most left-leaning outcome, as opposed to a heavily fascist one.