Big Surprise, faux populist backed by real estate moguls

    • GreyEyedGhost
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      FPTP strongly weights towards a two-party system (where party means individual or group of individuals). The only real voting choices are to vote for a candidate or to vote against a candidate. Any other choice is wildly ineffective.

      There are many other systems that are better representations of the will of the people, both at the political party level and at the candidate level, but the caveat is that the two main parties will almost never be able to exercise the amount of power they currently have again. This may appear to be a good thing to the citizenry, but not to the two main parties.

        • GreyEyedGhost
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Didn’t read the bracketed text immediately after the quoted text, did you?

            • GreyEyedGhost
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Given your intentional obtuseness, this will be my last response.

              FPTP means the only votes that matter are those for the candidate with the most votes. It also means that a majority isn’t required to win, particularly if there are more than two choices as we typically have in Canada. Therefore, the only two winning strategies are to get a simple majority or to get a plurality without sufficiently outraging those who oppose you to actively vote for the second-likeliest vote, reducing vote-splitting and upsetting the norms. Not voting, as you disingenuously suggest, merely increases the odds of the person you’re opposed to having win actually doing so. You can use whatever gradeschool-level language typically found in alternating caps to refute the point, or you could read just about anything written about the flaws of FPTP and see my exact scenario mentioned.