Point B would be true in a world where the US is a properly functioning and fair democracy. It is not. Elections are popularity contests, and the easiest way to become vastly more known and popular than other candidates is by throwing money at it. Without big donors, your party doesn’t stand a chance. At best you have zero impact, at worst you act as a spoiler candidate and get the exact opposite of what you want in power.
In such a system, candidates aren’t owed your vote. You owe your neighbors to vote in such a way that potential harm is minimised. A 3rd party vote, if unviable, is never that. In the US electoral system, it doesn’t make sense to vote for someone, it makes sense to vote against someone. Which is a deeply sad reality and shows that the US is in dire need of electoral reform.
Again. I am excruciatingly well aware of the “realities” of the U.S. electoral system. They are handicaps that are currently preventing the best candidate from being selected. None of them change the fact that the population is responsible for selecting the best candidate. Of course the handicaps exist, that’s why we’re not selecting the best candidate. That does not somehow release us of the responsibility of selecting the best candidate. That makes literally no sense.
That does not somehow release us of the responsibility of selecting the best candidate.
You never had that responsibility in the first place, the US electoral system never bestowed that upon you. That privilege goes to party chairs and big donors. You have the responsibility of selecting the least worst option, which is similar but fundamentally different.
The only way to get this responsibility is through extensive electoral reform, but the money in politics has decided against that so you’re not getting it. And you have next to no viable way of getting it anyway.
You never had that responsibility in the first place, the US electoral system never bestowed that upon you. That privilege goes to party chairs and big donors. You have the responsibility of selecting the least worst option, which is similar but fundamentally different.
Clearly I’m talking about how the system must work, and you’re talking about how the system has been manipulated. These are separate topics. And the current manipulation, for all its problems, has not eliminated the ability to choose from voters. Save for the 1 or 2 states where they actively said they’re discard a specific write-in candidate (which I doubt is constitutional).
Point A is absolutely true.
Point B would be true in a world where the US is a properly functioning and fair democracy. It is not. Elections are popularity contests, and the easiest way to become vastly more known and popular than other candidates is by throwing money at it. Without big donors, your party doesn’t stand a chance. At best you have zero impact, at worst you act as a spoiler candidate and get the exact opposite of what you want in power.
In such a system, candidates aren’t owed your vote. You owe your neighbors to vote in such a way that potential harm is minimised. A 3rd party vote, if unviable, is never that. In the US electoral system, it doesn’t make sense to vote for someone, it makes sense to vote against someone. Which is a deeply sad reality and shows that the US is in dire need of electoral reform.
Again. I am excruciatingly well aware of the “realities” of the U.S. electoral system. They are handicaps that are currently preventing the best candidate from being selected. None of them change the fact that the population is responsible for selecting the best candidate. Of course the handicaps exist, that’s why we’re not selecting the best candidate. That does not somehow release us of the responsibility of selecting the best candidate. That makes literally no sense.
You never had that responsibility in the first place, the US electoral system never bestowed that upon you. That privilege goes to party chairs and big donors. You have the responsibility of selecting the least worst option, which is similar but fundamentally different.
The only way to get this responsibility is through extensive electoral reform, but the money in politics has decided against that so you’re not getting it. And you have next to no viable way of getting it anyway.
Clearly I’m talking about how the system must work, and you’re talking about how the system has been manipulated. These are separate topics. And the current manipulation, for all its problems, has not eliminated the ability to choose from voters. Save for the 1 or 2 states where they actively said they’re discard a specific write-in candidate (which I doubt is constitutional).