I fo think that people should vote this way to show the disagreement. Increase in votes to third parties can make more people a bit more confident in voting for them the next time right?
In a majority rules, representative democracy, the peoples’ voice is heard through electing officials that promise to vote on behalf of the constituents.
This is seen to good effect in the legislative branch, where specific candidates hold office for short terms. But as empirical data suggests, the two party system is still relied upon, especially when it comes to less-than-ideally informed voters.
When it comes to presidential candidates, who wield far greater power over longer terms, voters are averse to the risk of giant, sweeping changes.
There have been numerous popular third-party candidates vying for the presidency, but none that sufficiently capture a voter base. So, therefore it is equated to throwing the vote away
But imo, long live Bernie. I would have voted with my soul
Well you’re right, that comment got away from me and I forgot how I started it, so that did sound pretty dumb on re-reading.
Aside from that though, let’s dig in.
Are you suggesting only the very intelligent vote? How do you propose we have an inclusive voting system while not accepting that some people will vote recklessly, mistakenly (as in understanding), or antagonistically? It is a natural trapping and I see no way of extinguishing less than informed votes.
Yes, platforms and pillars are not as finely detailed during campaigns to the greater public. But it is unarguable that the two parties branch at the question of “remain the same as much as possible” vs “progress the government to meet modern times”
Other parties generally stem from the big two. It’s been a long time since anarchy or pure communism had a seat at the table
Removed by mod
I fo think that people should vote this way to show the disagreement. Increase in votes to third parties can make more people a bit more confident in voting for them the next time right?
Let’s refine your comment.
In a majority rules, representative democracy, the peoples’ voice is heard through electing officials that promise to vote on behalf of the constituents.
This is seen to good effect in the legislative branch, where specific candidates hold office for short terms. But as empirical data suggests, the two party system is still relied upon, especially when it comes to less-than-ideally informed voters.
When it comes to presidential candidates, who wield far greater power over longer terms, voters are averse to the risk of giant, sweeping changes.
There have been numerous popular third-party candidates vying for the presidency, but none that sufficiently capture a voter base. So, therefore it is equated to throwing the vote away
But imo, long live Bernie. I would have voted with my soul
Removed by mod
Well you’re right, that comment got away from me and I forgot how I started it, so that did sound pretty dumb on re-reading.
Aside from that though, let’s dig in.
Are you suggesting only the very intelligent vote? How do you propose we have an inclusive voting system while not accepting that some people will vote recklessly, mistakenly (as in understanding), or antagonistically? It is a natural trapping and I see no way of extinguishing less than informed votes.
Yes, platforms and pillars are not as finely detailed during campaigns to the greater public. But it is unarguable that the two parties branch at the question of “remain the same as much as possible” vs “progress the government to meet modern times”
Other parties generally stem from the big two. It’s been a long time since anarchy or pure communism had a seat at the table
Removed by mod