Lemdro.id

2 points

19 days ago

I suppose that is a tangible way to affect change under the existing electoral system, so more power to you. I guess, with that in mind, you need to vote third party on an occasion when third party will actually get that 5% threshold, which as you say takes trust.

report

[ - ]

3 points

19 days ago

need to vote third party on an occasion when third party will actually get that 5% threshold

non sequitur

You weren’t really very open to ideas. And, you were the best of the bunch in this thread.

report

[ - ]

1 point

18 days ago

That’s needlessly dismissive, I was repeating my understanding of what you’d said

report

[ - ]

2 points

18 days ago

I’m sorry you feel that way. Try something different next time.

report

[ - ]

1 point

18 days ago

You really had no interest in engaging with me did you? Because I basically fully agreed with you in my previous comment and you said I wasn’t open to ideas.

report

[ - ]

3 points

18 days ago

You failed to be adequate in either reading comprehension or presentation.

report

[ - ]

1 point

18 days ago

Ad hominem

report

Show more comments

[ - ]

1 point

17 days ago

OK. I’ll assign more benefit of the doubt.

To be moral and ethical in their voting choice, to serve systemic design intent, to serve the practicalities of implementation, an individual need not care about others’ votes.

So, it’s incorrect to set as a prerequisite a belief in success of a 5% goal to vote for it. Presenting as you did exemplifies the propaganda-fed ego of the neoliberal. The meaning in voting is not to make you feel good about yourself for choosing the bandwagon that wins. All should vote for whom best represents them with reckless disregard for the short-term outcome.

The eventual counterargument to what I’m saying is rooted in utilitarianism: Democracy produces at best mediocre outcomes. The systemic design answer was the electoral college.

report