• FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    If they don’t vote strategically then they give the advantage to their opponents. The alternative is to take votes away from a party that doesn’t quite align with you but could win and give them instead to a party that can’t win, resulting in an increased chance of the party that doesn’t align with you at all winning.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s a question of whether you want to win somewhat or lose completely. Democracy is compromise; you’re never going to find a candidate that perfectly aligns with your interests.

        If you insist that you will only vote for a niche third-party candidate under a system like America’s, then you’ve taken yourself out of the effective voting pool. Now neither of the two candidates who has a chance of winning needs to care about your interests at all.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Because Romney or McCain would have been so much better?

            Those were your choices.

              • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Then as I’ve said elsewhere, you’re effectively not a part of the voting population and your preferences are not reflected in the results.

                  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    When you use the opportunity you have to cast a vote that could actually make a difference. Instead you’re standing on the sidelines doing nothing except signal your virtue.