Victoria Antoinette

you’re either aware of the problem and want to encourage people to vote third party while pretending not to know how the system works or you’re actually just ignorant to the issu

false dichotomy

FPTP voting systems result in a 2 party system and simply voting for another party does not solve the issue.

this isn’t an immutable natural law.

divergers law is a useless tautology, not a natural law

it will always devolve to two parties.

you don’t have proof of this.

it didn’t matter what the vote count was. gore won, we all know it, and bush became president.

bill clinton signed the recognition of jerusalem and the embassy move. all trump did was stop delaying it.

al gore won the 2000 election, even with nader running. it was the supreme court that coronated bush.

Third party votes take votes away from the most aligned primary party

so-called primary parties don’t own the votes, so voting for a so-called third party doesn’t take them away. it’s up to politicians to earn votes.

he only won last time because people like you felt icky about voting for Clinton.

he won because people voted for him. I voted against him, and I’m going to again. and I’m voting against biden just like the last time. you’re characterization is patronizing and dismissive of real concerns.

really hope you get to feel the worst of it.

why the fuck would you wish that on anyone?

I’m not straw-manning, you said before with regards to looking up the spoiler effect “I have. it’s not a natural phenomenon, it’s a story that the media tells.”

in that context, the fact that the media says it and academics say it is a reason some people might believe it. i’m saying even if you do believe it, it’s an undisprovable claim. it has little explanatory power, and ultimately, yes, is a myth.

you can try and handwave this away by saying, “oh but that’s what people were TOLD TO BELIEVE, so you can’t prove it”.

this is a strawman. you’re not dealing with what I actually said.

being confident doesn’t make a natural law.

I would feel terrible if my vote helped put either of them in office, so I can’t justify voting for either of them.

we need to define terms like “consistently” and “trend”. but even once you do that we still have the problem that you’re already explaining away exceptions. this theory is not disprovable because there is no outcome that you would say actually disproves it. you would say we just need more data.

you’re missing the crux of why it’s not provable: there is no test for it. it’s not that it’s “about beliefs” is that you can’t conduct an experiment to determine the validity

they don’t need to be equal for neither of them to be acceptable

ask yourself: what test can we make that would disprove the theory?

maybe i’m just not smart enough to come up with one, but i can’t conceive of one. an untestable, that is, an undisprovable hypothesis, is an empty tautology. or, at least modern epistemologists and critical rationalists have treated them this way.

maybe disprovability isn’t a necessary facet of sound scientific theories. i tend to agree with popper, though.

i don’t mind having many threads. it’s at least partially my doing. but having redundant conversations across them seems like a giant waste.

you don’t care enough to make a difference,

if the difference i made put biden in power, i would feel terrible. same for trump. so i will vote for someone i do want to have the office for 4 years.

it seems that you are already trying to explain away exceptions rather than accepting that this myth lacks predictive power and may not, in fact, accurately explain any past elections at all.