• lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    “Questionable decisions,” said the individual who had to dig back 100 years to find an example of any tangible progress made by such a 3rd-party…?

    I think I’ll go with the party that actually has a track-record of progress this half-century.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Clear, substantive tangible records speaks nothing to the issue at hand that is discussing whether third-parties actually do anything…?

        Huh?

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/9218081

          you will see that the issue is the provability of whether so-called third parties can achieve anything, and whether it’s provable that voting for them has supported a “greater evil”. i have demonstrated the success of so-called third parties, and its prima facie impossible to prove a counterfactual.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I have proved both of these things. Both With Nader and Perot, as well as showing the difference in actual progressive advancements between third-parties in Democrats is so great that there is little point in supporting a third-party — especially when the FPTP system mathematically goes against them.

            But any time you want to make a bet a 3rd-party candidate winning versus one of the two primary parties, I’ll happily take that bet on money.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I have proved both of these things.

              you literally cannot prove a counterfactual, so claiming you have reeks of intellectual dishonesty

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                It’s a fact that 3rd-party lose universally all of their elections while often spoiling elections for the primary party that most-closely shares their interests. This is not a counter-factual; this is not Ad Ignorantiam.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It’s a fact that 3rd-party lose universally all of their elections while often spoiling elections for the primary party that most-closely shares their interests.

                  no it’s not. only a single counterexample is necessary to disprove this. but that’s not even what’s at issue here. what’s at issue is what the greater evil would have been. we cannot know what the losers of elections would have done had they won.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              any time you want to make a bet a 3rd-party candidate winning versus one of the two primary parties

              this is a red herring and doesn’t address the substance of our disagreement at all

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                It’s not really a red-herring; it’s simply putting money where your mouth is.

                It’s putting weight behind your words, and it proves my point.