While there are two dominant political parties in the United States, every presidential election I've participated in has had more than two candidates to choose from. I'd appreciate it if you'd expand upon your point.
Because they're an instrumental part of how the election process works for quite a while now. If a candidate is receiving 0 electoral votes they are functionally as electable as you or I.
You've more than proven yourself to be in bad faith here though, so you'll have to pester someone else with future efforts.
I'm literally just asking you to explain your own understanding of presidential elections and that's somehow acting in bad faith? What else am I supposed to do, given that you mistakenly believe that there are only two political parties in the US and, for some unknown reason, I'm an elector and not just a regular voter?
If you're acting in good faith why did you not answer when I asked if you understood how our elections work?
If you're acting in good faith where did I state you were an elector?
If you're acting in good faith why are you badgering with a question that you already know the answer to?
No. You are not "literally just asking you to explain your own understanding of presidential elections" and you know it. You refuse to participate in the discussion in favor of your own, possibly with the intent of seeking some kind of so-called gotcha moment. It's not coming. They're are functionally two parties within our presidential elections.
Since 1900 a third party candidate has received more than 5% of the popular vote (that's you and me) roughly 6 times. That number drops to about 4 if you want more than 10%. In that same time a third party candidate has received any votes from electors (which are outdated but still very much the ones who are counted thus important to the process as it exists) in 6 elections. The last one was in 1972.
And just to further reinforce, that's any votes from electors. The highest in that time was in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt received 88. George Wallace later got 46 in 1968 and Strom Thurmond managed 39 in 1948. They continue downward from there.
So no, as you've been told by others, a third party candidate is generally not electable in the system we have. This is why the system is often called a two party system despite the existence of third parties. You'll notice in common parlance they're not counted, they're called third parties. This is not a controversial opinion I hold, it's how it is widely discussed by laymen and experts alike.
But you already knew all that and instead chose to badger to try and, I can only assume, have some kind of moment or way you were right. You were acting in bad faith and I have no more time or energy for your type of "discussion". Goodbye.
I ignored your bad faith questioning of my understanding of presidential elections for the sake of civility. Second, this thread is about votes cast in the general election, not the electoral college; as I've tried to make clear, I do not vote in the electoral college. Third, your Wikipedia data-dive is fascinating, but irrelevant to your theory that votes can be cast against candidates.
Face it: there are only two candidates who realistically have a chance at winning the general election. It’s been that way for every US election we’ve seen.
If you vote for someone who doesn’t have a realistic chance of winning, that’s about the same as just not voting at all.
So you really have 3 choices: candidate A, candidate B, or indifference.
And there are two possible outcomes: candidate A or candidate B.
If one of those outcomes is at all preferable to the other, (e.g. either A is “better” or B is “worse”), it’s strategically best to vote for the main candidate you prefer, since that increases the chance of getting your preference of the two outcomes.
So you're ashamed to support it? Honestly that's even worse. I understand quietly doing it because you think you have to but going around telling everyone about it and trying to convince them to as well doesn't seem like shame to me. Seems like you're proud about it
Votes aren't cast against candidates.
They are in a two party system
No they aren't that is not how votes work.
It is with the electoral college
Which is anti-democratic and I am glad you mention it because it means my vote in california doesn't even matter anyway lmao.
Your democracy is a fucking joke.
While there are two dominant political parties in the United States, every presidential election I've participated in has had more than two candidates to choose from. I'd appreciate it if you'd expand upon your point.
How many presidential elections have you participated in where more than two parties received any electoral votes at all?
When did I claim to be an elector?
I assumed you understood how a presidential election worked in the US. Was I mistaken?
I'm not an elector, so why would you bring up the electoral college?
Because they're an instrumental part of how the election process works for quite a while now. If a candidate is receiving 0 electoral votes they are functionally as electable as you or I.
You've more than proven yourself to be in bad faith here though, so you'll have to pester someone else with future efforts.
I'm literally just asking you to explain your own understanding of presidential elections and that's somehow acting in bad faith? What else am I supposed to do, given that you mistakenly believe that there are only two political parties in the US and, for some unknown reason, I'm an elector and not just a regular voter?
Against my better judgement, why not.
If you're acting in good faith why did you not answer when I asked if you understood how our elections work?
If you're acting in good faith where did I state you were an elector?
If you're acting in good faith why are you badgering with a question that you already know the answer to?
No. You are not "literally just asking you to explain your own understanding of presidential elections" and you know it. You refuse to participate in the discussion in favor of your own, possibly with the intent of seeking some kind of so-called gotcha moment. It's not coming. They're are functionally two parties within our presidential elections.
Since 1900 a third party candidate has received more than 5% of the popular vote (that's you and me) roughly 6 times. That number drops to about 4 if you want more than 10%. In that same time a third party candidate has received any votes from electors (which are outdated but still very much the ones who are counted thus important to the process as it exists) in 6 elections. The last one was in 1972.
And just to further reinforce, that's any votes from electors. The highest in that time was in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt received 88. George Wallace later got 46 in 1968 and Strom Thurmond managed 39 in 1948. They continue downward from there.
So no, as you've been told by others, a third party candidate is generally not electable in the system we have. This is why the system is often called a two party system despite the existence of third parties. You'll notice in common parlance they're not counted, they're called third parties. This is not a controversial opinion I hold, it's how it is widely discussed by laymen and experts alike.
But you already knew all that and instead chose to badger to try and, I can only assume, have some kind of moment or way you were right. You were acting in bad faith and I have no more time or energy for your type of "discussion". Goodbye.
I ignored your bad faith questioning of my understanding of presidential elections for the sake of civility. Second, this thread is about votes cast in the general election, not the electoral college; as I've tried to make clear, I do not vote in the electoral college. Third, your Wikipedia data-dive is fascinating, but irrelevant to your theory that votes can be cast against candidates.
Face it: there are only two candidates who realistically have a chance at winning the general election. It’s been that way for every US election we’ve seen.
If you vote for someone who doesn’t have a realistic chance of winning, that’s about the same as just not voting at all.
So you really have 3 choices: candidate A, candidate B, or indifference.
And there are two possible outcomes: candidate A or candidate B.
If one of those outcomes is at all preferable to the other, (e.g. either A is “better” or B is “worse”), it’s strategically best to vote for the main candidate you prefer, since that increases the chance of getting your preference of the two outcomes.
Right now candidate A and candidate B are functionally the same.
This is the democracy you're proud to support?
Who says I'm proud to support it
So you're ashamed to support it? Honestly that's even worse. I understand quietly doing it because you think you have to but going around telling everyone about it and trying to convince them to as well doesn't seem like shame to me. Seems like you're proud about it
i think he means he doesn't support it, he was pointing out the flaw of the two party system?
That's it exactly
Sounds like a dogshit system not worth propping up.
What if I really disike the policies of both candidates?