• emergencyfood@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Given the system you’re voting under - you should vote for someone who has a chance of winning.

    The problem is that who ‘has a chance of winning’ is decided by who people vote for.

    Voting for a third party with single-digit support is not much better.

    Uh, that’s what the Sri Lankan voters just did? The winner this time had 3% of the vote-share in the last election.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Dude had 3% support despite everyone being able to toss him a vote just-in-case. Anyone who voted for only him, “last election,” was a fool. That negligible support is not what made him a viable candidate in the separate election they “just did.”

      No kidding your choices depend on how other people vote, that’s what democracy is. If you can’t rally a shitload of people behind your guy… you lose. That part is not the failure of Plurality. Plurality blows because two similar groups can be wildly popular and still get destroyed by a minority of schmucks.

      The winner of this election was not decided by everyone seeing through The Matrix or whatever and deciding to defeat a broken electoral system. It sounds like 95% of them are functionally unaware of which electoral system they have.