You vote exclusively for candidates that actively support and benefit from first past the post
That isn't true, and I just told you. This sort of change happens at the local level, at the lower ranks of government.
The president is not the only elected position in government.
and are fighting against a candidate that actively supports getting rid of it.
Not really. Stein is probably barely even on the Harris campaign's radar. The actual, real fight is against Trump.
You cant claim to want to get rid of it
Sure I can, just watch me:
I want to get rid of the spoiler effect, and will help to do so by voting for candidates at the local level who support better voting methods, when such candidates are available.
Such candidates are available, youre arguing they shouldnt be allowed to run because theyll spoil the party that benefits tremendously from first past the post.
youre arguing they shouldnt be allowed to run because theyll spoil the party that benefits
No I'm not. I'm saying it is almost always a waste of a vote to give them your vote. And anybody running as a 3rd party candidate should do so strategically, in places where there is actually a chance to win without causing ideologically furthest opponents from winning.
Huge swaths of races in the U.S. go unopposed, largely at the local level. Third parties could easily and cheaply target those races, but they don't.
Sorry, im mixed up in several posts specifically about barring third parties from running. This one is just criticism.
That isn't true, and I just told you. This sort of change happens at the local level, at the lower ranks of government.
The president is not the only elected position in government.
Not really. Stein is probably barely even on the Harris campaign's radar. The actual, real fight is against Trump.
Sure I can, just watch me:
I want to get rid of the spoiler effect, and will help to do so by voting for candidates at the local level who support better voting methods, when such candidates are available.
Such candidates are available, youre arguing they shouldnt be allowed to run because theyll spoil the party that benefits tremendously from first past the post.
No I'm not. I'm saying it is almost always a waste of a vote to give them your vote. And anybody running as a 3rd party candidate should do so strategically, in places where there is actually a chance to win without causing ideologically furthest opponents from winning.
Huge swaths of races in the U.S. go unopposed, largely at the local level. Third parties could easily and cheaply target those races, but they don't.
Sorry, im mixed up in several posts specifically about barring third parties from running. This one is just criticism.