this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
552 points (90.9% liked)

Comic Strips

20223 readers
1475 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] axx@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Funny, and promoting the wrong idea. "Tactical voting" is the bane of democracy. If you're against "third parties" you are, fundamentally, against choice and thus democracy.

And if you're adamant you are not, in fact, against democracy, then you must be trying your best to destroy the two-patwo-party system that corrupts democracy in the USA, right? And what better way to do that than to make third party options viable?

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 weeks ago

The issue is that voting for third parties doesn't make third parties viable in first-past-the-post systems. I, for example, would love if my country had a diverse parliament, but I continue to vote for the saner major party in my constituency because if votes are split between them and the party I'd really like to be in power, then neither of them will be.

Tactical voting is the symptom of two party systems, not the cause.

[–] mapu@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You don't make third parties viable by voting for them, though. You do so by pushing for electoral reform and systems like score voting, proportional representation, or MP

[–] axx@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 weeks ago

You do both. Nader could've been a real way out of this fucked up mess we still call the USA, had he not endlessly been pushed side to calls of "too soon, we need to stay focused". End result is all this tactical voting turned out to be a great tactic for the right.