• ZombiFrancis
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Choosing between missing the point and ignoring the problem sucks.

        • Glytch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          “BuT tHaT mEaNs YuR gIvInG vOtEs To TeH bAd GuYs” -political binarists on either side

            • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              But it actually is.

              Look, our system sucks. Until the system itself gets fixed, third party candidates will always be spoilers.

              2000 was a great example. Nader got close to 100k votes in FL. Gore lost by fewer than 500.

              And Nader had a great record. He has always been a champion of environmentalism. Gore was too, but a little too corporate.

              Doesn’t matter. We got Bush Jr.

              Was 8 years of Bush 43 better for the world and environment than Gore? Probably not. But there’s 100k voters in FL for whom “environment” was likely a top concern, and as far as I’m concerned, 99,500 of them are fully responsible for the shape of the world today.

              It’s great to have ideals and morals. Hell, even if you don’t and you just have a vendetta against establishment (and, assuming your chosen third party were now a major party, you would stop supporting them), that’s fine too.

              But there comes a point when those ideals clash with reality, and following them has outcomes contrary to your ideals.

      • ZombiFrancis
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        It often feels like the folks stoked about either are increasingly pushing people towards that conclusion.