• aliceblossom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    It does, but it’s just a big gamble. You’re attempting to scare one of the establishment parties into changing by causing them to lose an election heavily. So, if it works, you’ve necessarily made a material sacrifice in giving control of an office to the opposing party, allowing them to cause whatever real world damage they are capable of causing in that position. Then you have to hope that the message is received and that the party you spoiled actually changes in the way you want, and doesn’t just ignore you. And you also have to hope that they recognize and change quickly or else the damage compounds as more elections pass.

    On top of that, this only works “once”. If the party starts ignoring you again you have to make these real consequential sacrifices again.

    In conclusion, with voting third party the sacrifice is guaranteed, the reward is not.

    I will admit it’s possible that spoiling/scaring is the only way to get RCV (or better) in the first place since the only group it’s not good for is sitting politicians, but I’m not convinced yet.

    But I’m entirely convinced that without an improved voting system we don’t actually have a democracy.

    And for anyone who’s reading this, if you’re a Missourian vote NO on Amendment 7!

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Well if the outcome is so undecided as to not be able to logical choose a side, then I will almost always choose the side that is reforming what we have or creating something new, rather than sticking with what we have and just trying to do it right each time.

      We know 100% that waiting for politicians to give away their own power isn’t working, so even a minuscule chance of something better has to be given at least some consideration.