• cerevant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    They don’t. That’s why the word “might” is in the headline.

    The simple math is that if you vote third party, it always helps the remaining candidate you like the least. This is because it reduces the number of votes needed to win.

    • Crisps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you live in a gerrymandered district (house), or a state (senate, president) with winner takes all then your vote doesn’t count anyway unless the vote s normally close. Voting 3rd party in that situation (most people) is actually less of a waste. If the third party gets starts getting close to being included in debates the two electable parties will strive to do better. Right now the bar is so low because there is no competition.

    • elscallr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Being a lifelong third party voter, I’ve heard the “spoiler” line probably a thousand times, and always from Democrats.

      Anecdotal, sure… but that “might” is a hedge and we both know it.

      • cerevant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, I lived in Canada over 3 election cycles, and I saw the riding I lived in go to the conservatives with 40% of the vote in 2 of them. If the incumbant MP didn’t go to jail, it probably would have been all 3.

        Again, it isn’t politics, it is simple math. In a plurality voting system, voting for a 3rd party (by definition, the candidate with the least support) always increases your chances of getting what you perceive as the worst outcome.