What “strategy?” That’s what the system is. It’s a two-party system, inherently.
You have two candidates to pick from. You either pick the candidate who is closer to your ideals or you pick the candidate that’s farther away from your ideals. If you don’t vote or you vote for a “third party” candidate then you’re just throwing your choice away and abdicating it to those who do vote for one of those two options.
the video you linked called it strategic voting, and the real takeaway from that video is that strategic voting leads to voters having fewer choices and losing representation.
If they don’t vote strategically then they give the advantage to their opponents. The alternative is to take votes away from a party that doesn’t quite align with you but could win and give them instead to a party that can’t win, resulting in an increased chance of the party that doesn’t align with you at all winning.
It’s a question of whether you want to win somewhat or lose completely. Democracy is compromise; you’re never going to find a candidate that perfectly aligns with your interests.
If you insist that you will only vote for a niche third-party candidate under a system like America’s, then you’ve taken yourself out of the effective voting pool. Now neither of the two candidates who has a chance of winning needs to care about your interests at all.
That is exactly the kind of dogshit strategy that disenfranchises voters, loses elections and gives republicans a majority.
What “strategy?” That’s what the system is. It’s a two-party system, inherently.
You have two candidates to pick from. You either pick the candidate who is closer to your ideals or you pick the candidate that’s farther away from your ideals. If you don’t vote or you vote for a “third party” candidate then you’re just throwing your choice away and abdicating it to those who do vote for one of those two options.
If you want it to be different from that then the fundamental voting system itself needs to be changed. The current one that America operates under inevitably becomes two-party. CPG Grey did a video a few years ago explaining why this is so.
the video you linked called it strategic voting, and the real takeaway from that video is that strategic voting leads to voters having fewer choices and losing representation.
If they don’t vote strategically then they give the advantage to their opponents. The alternative is to take votes away from a party that doesn’t quite align with you but could win and give them instead to a party that can’t win, resulting in an increased chance of the party that doesn’t align with you at all winning.
if I vote for somebody who doesnt align with me I can’t win at all.
It’s a question of whether you want to win somewhat or lose completely. Democracy is compromise; you’re never going to find a candidate that perfectly aligns with your interests.
If you insist that you will only vote for a niche third-party candidate under a system like America’s, then you’ve taken yourself out of the effective voting pool. Now neither of the two candidates who has a chance of winning needs to care about your interests at all.
that’s how I felt since I voted for Obama and he didn’t close gitmo. so I may as well not support them if they don’t care about me.
Because Romney or McCain would have been so much better?
Those were your choices.
I don’t vote for imperialists, so they weren’t choices either