• OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    No, they got what they wanted by bringing third party candidates to the discussion table so more people would vote third party in future elections.

    One day we might even be able to elect a candidate who isn’t the “lesser evil”

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      One day we might even be able to elect a candidate who isn’t the “lesser evil”

      Literally impossible in the US unless one of two things happen. Either:

      1. Both the current major parties fracture, and the resulting two parties that will occur thereafter align themselves on axes that are dissimilar to the ones that the current two parties are aligned on, or

      2. Laws are passed to remove FPTP and winner take all so that not voting for a Republican or Democrat has an actual influence on the vote.

      The current system in the US is statistically proven to result in two majority parties controlling the government. The only effect that voting third-party does now is to spoil the votes for the majority-party candidate most closely aligned with that third-party.

        • LorIps@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          The rise of Labour happened because of a change in the voting system. The Reform Act of 1918 got rid of property qualifications which previously hindered Labour’s base from being able to vote. And even then Labour and the Liberals competing for votes resulted in a decade of conservative government.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      One day we might get stv approval voting instant runoff or one of the methods that allow 3rd parties to win push for that at the state level instead of fantasies that can never work