What a simplistic way to look at the problem.

If you can only vote for one option then the better a 3rd party does the more it hurts the main party closest to it. I would expect Democrats and Republicans to be funding 3rd parties in the hopes of improving their chances of getting the most votes.

Logically? It's actually not. Democrats are still not alt right facists even if this bill is based in stupidity.

A third party right now can't mathematically win, and the thing is with the current Republican party (which is basically our Nazi party) if you vote for a third party at this point, you are outright throwing your vote to the nazis.

So, yes- it shouldn't ideally work like this, but in reality, does. And not voting Democrat right now or voting third party means voting for Republicans, which is even riskier, and arguably, voting for an even greater evil given Republicans have our Supreme Court packed right now and we can't afford to lose it any elections from here forward.

Let's put it this way: you have one vote against the worst popular evil by voting for the other evil. So your vote is still necessary to keep the worst one at bay.

If you don't vote or you use your vote for any other reason, one of the two big parties is still going to fill that seat. So your power in this situation is very limited.

If you don't want a Democrat in that office, vote Republican.

If you don't want a Republican in that seat, vote for the Democrat candidate.

Do anything else and one of the two above will take the post.

(Some local elections in the US have been improved from FPTP so you may have better options in those.)

The Supreme Court is supposed to recognize the dangers of carving out exceptions to civil rights. They stopped a while ago, and started cutting into those rights severely after the PATRIOT act. The dominance of Federalist Society shills on the bench only facilitated this process more.

But that's come at a cost. Dobbs demonstrated to the public the US Supreme Court is interested in agendas outside public interest (specifically those of the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation). It's now clearer than ever the court system is not going to protect our rights. That includes our lives and persons from law-enforcement brutality and overreach. Your fourth- and fifth-amendment protections have been gutted to insignificance. And a lot of us know that, that our framers traded constitutional monarchy for unchecked plutocracy with extra steps.

So while we fear the police and the courts, we don't trust them. Crime no longer is synonymous with wrongdoing. Conviction no longer means guilt so much as officers torturing a confession out of someone and judges filling jury boxes with bigoted imbiciles.

Those who want actual democracy know our establishment system doesn't give them any power, so we're going to obey censorship laws the way we obey speed limits.

But this mean the public won't be going to law enforcement when it comes to more nefarous criminals. Where not going to report terrorists and mobsters or even CSAM traffickers when drawing attention to ourselves could get our house raided and our kids killed, which is what we face any time we see police (unless we're affluent and in an upper-class neighborhood.)

The rest of us have more in common with the local rec-drug supplier than we do a police officer. And the dealer won't kill our dog.

That was before the internet was five big websites showing content scraped from the other four.

A 16 year old girl who wants to know what to do after getting pregnant does not