Vice President Kamala Harris' refusal to break with the Biden administration's support for Israel's assault on Gaza cost her millions of potential Democratic voters. Will the Democratic Party learn from this and listen to its voters who want leaders to oppose sending more weapons to Israel? #Gaza #ElectionImpact
Correct, candidates are not entitled to votes, but I dont know what voting system your fantasy world uses.
Lets ignore parties for a moment and just say you have two people running that are different degrees of evil. I would argue a failure to vote for the lesser evil is to abide the greater evil (does this make you evil?). In this case, abstaining or apathy itself is also a choice, and would be cosidered evil because you did not act against the greater evil.
Lets add a more realistic third candidate in and demonstrate the spoiler effect. Where there is an idealogical divide, the side with the fewer candidates wins. If a third party throws their hat into the ring, they end up encroching on support held by their idealogical peers, effectivly handing the win to their oppsition by simply existing.
Combining both of these observations looks an awful lot like the electoral college and the US voting system. Neither major party is willing to allow a third party to exist in their space, because if they do they lose by spoiler effect and forces people to strategicly vote instead of standing by their ideals. The solution is getting rid of first-past-the-post and moving to a ranked choice or instant run-off system similar to the ones found in the EU, this would allow people to put their ideal candidate first without jepordizing their idealogical peers. Until such a time when that is a reality, being a protest voter/non-voter is making a choice against your own self interests and the interests of those you care for.
Living in a blue state, I chose not to vote for Harris, I understand what I was doing. Harris got all of my state’s electoral college votes and I did not vote for her or Trump. I also chose not to vote for any senators or reps who receive aipac money, but I also live in a blue county in a blue state….
Correct, candidates are not entitled to votes, but I dont know what voting system your fantasy world uses.
Lets ignore parties for a moment and just say you have two people running that are different degrees of evil. I would argue a failure to vote for the lesser evil is to abide the greater evil (does this make you evil?). In this case, abstaining or apathy itself is also a choice, and would be cosidered evil because you did not act against the greater evil.
Lets add a more realistic third candidate in and demonstrate the spoiler effect. Where there is an idealogical divide, the side with the fewer candidates wins. If a third party throws their hat into the ring, they end up encroching on support held by their idealogical peers, effectivly handing the win to their oppsition by simply existing.
Combining both of these observations looks an awful lot like the electoral college and the US voting system. Neither major party is willing to allow a third party to exist in their space, because if they do they lose by spoiler effect and forces people to strategicly vote instead of standing by their ideals. The solution is getting rid of first-past-the-post and moving to a ranked choice or instant run-off system similar to the ones found in the EU, this would allow people to put their ideal candidate first without jepordizing their idealogical peers. Until such a time when that is a reality, being a protest voter/non-voter is making a choice against your own self interests and the interests of those you care for.
Living in a blue state, I chose not to vote for Harris, I understand what I was doing. Harris got all of my state’s electoral college votes and I did not vote for her or Trump. I also chose not to vote for any senators or reps who receive aipac money, but I also live in a blue county in a blue state….