Because even tho more disagree with me, that doesn’t matter, because I’m not running for president. It’s the ones who disagree with the idea of there only being two parties, that the Democrats need to worry about–not me. Thanks!
Those are your words to another commenter, whom I think we can very safely assume is also not running for president. So why bring it up at all if it doesn’t matter?
Well, if you believe plenty of people don’t disagree with you, then neither you nor the Democrats should have anything to worry about or be upset about when it comes to third parties. Thanks, friend! :)
That would be fine if it weren’t for the fact that the races are so tight that every vote matters. If Harris had a healthy lead on Trump to the point where a couple hundred votes here and there could be thrown away and she’d still win nobody would worry, we’d say “sure, throw away your vote, or you know, just stay home, you do you”, but unfortunately that’s not the case. So yes, the vast overwhelming majority of people disagree with you, but unfortunately even being wrong your vote is still important.
On the topic of whether there are more than two parties, first past the post means no, there aren’t, there can’t be more than two parties. Fix first past the post if you want an actual democracy. Until that happens, voting 3rd party is functionally the same as not voting, in either case your vote isn’t being counted to determine the winner.
And anyone who is interested in reading and learning about the history of Hamas will be convinced that it’s not about liberation. It’s about genocide against the Jews.
That can be true and she can still be the best candidate. There’s a very long list of people I would rather see elected president but unfortunately the reality is that only one of two people are going to win. It’s either Harris or Trump, and while I don’t like Harris for many many reasons, she’s not an existential threat to democracy like Trump is so she gets the votes. The only way to fix this is to get some kind of proportional voting implemented at the federal level. Personally I like STAR voting, but even the worse choice of ranked choice is still better than first past the post.
Yes they are.
Looks like plenty of people disagree with you.
Looks like even more disagree with you.
Sure, but I’m not running for prez and I’m not creating ads against others who are.
What does that have to do with anything?
Because even tho more disagree with me, that doesn’t matter, because I’m not running for president. It’s the ones who disagree with the idea of there only being two parties, that the Democrats need to worry about–not me. Thanks!
It’s become obvious that you don’t post in spite of critics but because of them. You’re a trumper fueled by your contrarianism. Everyone can see it.
I didn’t vote for Trump. Thank you!
You already admitted to it. you can stop pretending spoilers are a concept.
Those are your words to another commenter, whom I think we can very safely assume is also not running for president. So why bring it up at all if it doesn’t matter?
Beg to differ.
Well, if you believe plenty of people don’t disagree with you, then neither you nor the Democrats should have anything to worry about or be upset about when it comes to third parties. Thanks, friend! :)
Everyone in the entire country has something to worry about BECAUSE there are only two parties. Did you have your pills this morning?
No pills needed. I happily voted third party. Thank you! :)
Soon as the GOP stops attacking women and courting nazis I’ll be with you.
That would be fine if it weren’t for the fact that the races are so tight that every vote matters. If Harris had a healthy lead on Trump to the point where a couple hundred votes here and there could be thrown away and she’d still win nobody would worry, we’d say “sure, throw away your vote, or you know, just stay home, you do you”, but unfortunately that’s not the case. So yes, the vast overwhelming majority of people disagree with you, but unfortunately even being wrong your vote is still important.
On the topic of whether there are more than two parties, first past the post means no, there aren’t, there can’t be more than two parties. Fix first past the post if you want an actual democracy. Until that happens, voting 3rd party is functionally the same as not voting, in either case your vote isn’t being counted to determine the winner.
Monk would evidently much rather vote for Pro-Israel candidate Rachele Fruit. Quoted earlier this year:
Yep, I voted for her. Ballot was sent in yesterday. Thank you! :)
If she didn’t swing hard right maybe polling wouldn’t be so tight.
That can be true and she can still be the best candidate. There’s a very long list of people I would rather see elected president but unfortunately the reality is that only one of two people are going to win. It’s either Harris or Trump, and while I don’t like Harris for many many reasons, she’s not an existential threat to democracy like Trump is so she gets the votes. The only way to fix this is to get some kind of proportional voting implemented at the federal level. Personally I like STAR voting, but even the worse choice of ranked choice is still better than first past the post.
Voting for who you want to, isn’t throwing away your vote. It’s exercising your rights. Thank you! :)
No, it’s throwing a vote away when it has no chance of affecting the election. It literally means your vote does nothing.