356

submitted 4 months ago by Estadiol_Enjoyer to c/196

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] qaz@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

He has some interesting points, but because of america's voting system every vote for him is de facto a vote for Trump.

[-] Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Can I ask you why you believe that? I feel that conclusion can only be made with many assumptions, especially as even republicans do not like Trump, they literally just hate Joe more (Seriously Bidenomics is a slur in most of the heartland Ive interacted with).

[-] qaz@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This is my reasoning:

America has first-past-the-post voting
That means the party with the most votes wins it all
The republican (41.7%) and democrat party poll high, nothing comes close (40.4%) (next up is Kennedy at 9.1%) ~~and the last candidate that wasn't from either party was George Washington (1789 - 1797)~~, therefore a vote for another party is essentially meaningless.
Therefore, either the Republican or Democratic Party win
The candidates for both parties have been determined at this point and are highly unlikely to change unless any of them die, therefore either Trump or Biden wins.
Therefore, all actions come down to 2 things: Increase the chance of Biden winning instead of Trump or don't

In my opinion, the only way to avoid each election coming down to damage control is to get rid of FPTP voting.

EDIT: The last candidate that wasn't from either party was not George Washington as lemonmelon@lemmy.world pointed out. It was Millard Fillmore (1850 - 1853).

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

re: "last candidate ... George Washington"

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making, as there have been multiple other parties whose candidates were elected to the presidency, including the Federalists, the Whigs, and the Democratic-Republicans. Theodore Roosevelt received the second-most votes in the 1912 election as a third-party candidate for the Progressive (Bull Moose) party.

[-] qaz@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I was trying to argue that candidates that aren't from the Republican or Democratic party haven't been elected from a long time. I looked up the last independent candidate, somehow forgetting that there were more parties. That said, the other candidates are still from more than a century ago.

[-] drosophila 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No, you're still right.

The US has had two major parties for the entirety of its existence. Occasionally one of those two parties collapses and is replaced by another one, but even during these upsets it is always one of the old major parties (the one that didn't collapse) that has their candidate elected.

Furthermore, if you take every third party + every independent and combine all their congressional seats the most they've ever held was 36, and that was in 1833-1835.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election#Popular_vote_results

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

[-] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

I don't live in a swing state. Connecticut has been reliably won, by a wide margin, by the same party for over 40 years. Voting for Oliver and maybe helping him get enough of the popular vote to be taken seriously in 28 is the only way my vote will matter at all. Take your idiotic generalizations back to reddit.