By not voting for B, they have inadvertently weakened B's position, which is called a Spoiler Effect: Because they ony have a single vote, any votes not put toward the two most popular candidates end up wasted, as the actually significant race happens between those two.
None of which is actually true.
Not voting isn't supporting whatever candidate for the same reason piracy isn't stealing: The intersection of people who'd have bought it if they couldn't pirate is never everyone and there's a myriad factors involved. Piracy can be reduced by localised pricing and easier access, whereas hunting down pirates doesn't help. Same approach works in politics.
People aren't ideological dots on the plane of ideologies, with a probability distribution in a circle around that point. Politics as a whole can't be described by a set of coordinates. If you've got a large wheel that turns only in one direction, in the long run the torque you apply won't make a difference, you can't revert it.
More inportant than these two combined is that it's all perceptions. On the base level it's not a given that the 2nd place was truly closer to winning than the 3rd. It is in the case of the US president, but not on the smaller, more local scale. Nobody's vote is actually locked in and even the voters of the top 2 choices are rarely as inflexible as they're portrayed. The deeper issue of perception is that the media landscape determines how people think. As near as 4 years ago I wouldn't have goven much credit to this myself, but the treatment of Sanders and Corbyn show beyond doubt that sustained media campaigns still work wonders and that a lot of assumptions are just horseshit. Consider, Bernie Sanders is possibly the only presidential hopeful in the US who won the first 3 states and still wasn't made candidate. The media always talks about momentum, but momentum isn't a point boost from election results, it's coverage after the fact. Winning Nevada by a landslide means fuckall if the media that's nominally friendly can't shut up about how some old sellout is going to support your corpse of an opponent.
That's the rule of capital, a fact that's unprofitable need not be true, until it becomes profitable.
You're reintroducing complexity into my simplified example and making very valid points about external factors influencing decisions, but I'd like to hear your argument for how the Spoiler Effect isn't real.
The comparison with piracy falls flat because one is a personal entertainment with limited effect where inaction merely affect your ability to enjoy the game, the other is a political affair where even inaction can have consequences on others.
I found another way to sum up my point in the meantime: Not voting means that you let the rest decide, and effectively give your assent to their decision in advance. Spoiler voting may hurt your preferred major party. Hence, voting for that major party is the most reasonable choice within the boundaries of the election.
But outside of it, FPTP and the liberal bourgeoisie should just take a fucking hike.
None of which is actually true.
Not voting isn't supporting whatever candidate for the same reason piracy isn't stealing: The intersection of people who'd have bought it if they couldn't pirate is never everyone and there's a myriad factors involved. Piracy can be reduced by localised pricing and easier access, whereas hunting down pirates doesn't help. Same approach works in politics.
People aren't ideological dots on the plane of ideologies, with a probability distribution in a circle around that point. Politics as a whole can't be described by a set of coordinates. If you've got a large wheel that turns only in one direction, in the long run the torque you apply won't make a difference, you can't revert it.
More inportant than these two combined is that it's all perceptions. On the base level it's not a given that the 2nd place was truly closer to winning than the 3rd. It is in the case of the US president, but not on the smaller, more local scale. Nobody's vote is actually locked in and even the voters of the top 2 choices are rarely as inflexible as they're portrayed. The deeper issue of perception is that the media landscape determines how people think. As near as 4 years ago I wouldn't have goven much credit to this myself, but the treatment of Sanders and Corbyn show beyond doubt that sustained media campaigns still work wonders and that a lot of assumptions are just horseshit. Consider, Bernie Sanders is possibly the only presidential hopeful in the US who won the first 3 states and still wasn't made candidate. The media always talks about momentum, but momentum isn't a point boost from election results, it's coverage after the fact. Winning Nevada by a landslide means fuckall if the media that's nominally friendly can't shut up about how some old sellout is going to support your corpse of an opponent.
That's the rule of capital, a fact that's unprofitable need not be true, until it becomes profitable.
You're reintroducing complexity into my simplified example and making very valid points about external factors influencing decisions, but I'd like to hear your argument for how the Spoiler Effect isn't real.
The comparison with piracy falls flat because one is a personal entertainment with limited effect where inaction merely affect your ability to enjoy the game, the other is a political affair where even inaction can have consequences on others.
deleted by creator
Agreement in all points.
I found another way to sum up my point in the meantime: Not voting means that you let the rest decide, and effectively give your assent to their decision in advance. Spoiler voting may hurt your preferred major party. Hence, voting for that major party is the most reasonable choice within the boundaries of the election.
But outside of it, FPTP and the liberal bourgeoisie should just take a fucking hike.
deleted by creator