Again, a party’s stance on any given policy is dictated by the members of the party. Which means that the voters can force the party to adopt a new position if they vote for candidates who want change.

It also means that if most of members of the party are criminals who support a genocide that becomes the party’s stance.

That’s literally what the theory and paper supporting it is about… Just because you refuse to accept what it claims does not mean it’s not supporting evidence.

If the theory claims that you can predict people vote then it’s a wrong theory because you cannot do that. People vote is a variable that can change according to a number so high of parameters that makes it “impossible” to predict.

Voting for people who run on an anti fascist platform is fascist…sure.

The democratic party is an anti fascist platform? The same platform supporting corporations, mass surveillance, authoritarian regimes and a genocide where kids are being murdered?

In a hypothetical situation where the only options for a candidate is a person like Abdul El-Sayed (dnc) or a person like Mike Rogers (rnc). Your claim would suggest that both candidates are just as bad because the leaders of their respective parties have both endorsed Israel? Even though Israel spent 60 million dollars in against Abdul’s primary election?

If you decide to affiliate with and to be under a leader who support a genocide because it gives you more popularity and votes you are not a good person. If a candidate was actually bad for israel government they would spend 60 millions to assasinate them.

So they are guilty by association? By that logic why are you supporting the genocide of Palestinians? You are tax paying citizen of a western nation supporting the genocide of Palestinians. Why would you associate yourself with a country that bombs children? Why not just move to a nation that has nothing to do with genocide?

You could indeed argue that anyone who pay taxes in a first world country is supporting the genocide, we are all guilty of enabling a corrupted system the same way germans were in nazi germany. Not paying taxes has direct repercussions such as going to jail, there aren’t any of such repercussions in choosing a different party to run with.

Your decisions still aid a party and a country that supports genocide.

That’s your assumption based on the propaganda that if you don’t vote for THE party you are doing something bad.

Because the voting population of the Republican party would be less likely to choose a progressive candidate. What would motivate a progressive candidate to enroll in a conservative party?

What would motivate a progressive canditate to enroll in an evil party that support a genocide?

I have backed my assumption with actual evidence… What evidence do you have to support your theory?

A prediction on what people will vote for is no evidence to prove that a third party can’t win. It’s easy to understand why, you cannot predict the outcome of the vote.

Says who? There are candidates that just won there primary as Democrats who have disavowed Israel and are democratic socialist. How is voting for them a vot for fascists?

In the scenario where you are voting for the lesser evil fascist you are voting for fascists, that’s the scenario of people voting for the lesser evil fascist in the latest US presidential elections. A vote for someone who is part of the democratic party is a vote for someone in a party that supports a genocide.

Which is better than advocating for the greater of the two evil… Which is what you are unwittingly doing.

I’ve never advocated for evil, I’ve always advocated to do the correct thing and to not support criminals with blood on their hands, don’t you realize how twisted your logic is?

And you seem more than happy to let them do that

I’ve been here advocating against an ongoing genocide in every post how the hell i’m happy to let them do that?

on a prospect

It sound to me that you are taking for granted a prospect. Instead of trusting prospects made by the government try to think with your mind. If people decide to vote for a third party a third party will win, if you believe people won’t decide to do that instead of advocating for the lesser evil try to change people mind or at last don’t attack people who are trying to do that.

yes TheFonz let’s think, why do these politicians keep aligning themself with criminals? If i have to guess it’s because they care more about power and being popular than doing what is good. Is bernie sanders an anti israel DSA candidate? Why is he on the platform of a nazi and doesn’t even bother to spend 2 minutes to set up a mastodon account?

The variables that matter are a constant… It doesn’t matter what parties run so long as the system in which they run is the same.

A person vote is a constant only if you assume that people will always vote in a certain way like voting for the party that has more chances of winning rather than voting for the party they identify with. That’s an assumption that generalize how people vote.

just that one of the main two parties in a two party system will win.

There are more than two parties or we wouldn’t be talking about third parties.

The party is a human construct, it’s the people in the party who make it evil. If you change the people it is a different party in all but name.

Same goes for the republicans, if it’s just a color why don’t blue canditates run for red to change it and make it good?

Voting for the lesser evil is better than voting for something that is not possible…which is the same as supporting the fascist.

“that is not possible” is your assumption, what it is not an assumption is that voting for lesser evil fascists is a vote for fascists.

You’re just ineffectually virtue signaling to make yourself feel better and at the same time making everything worse for the rest of the world.

To me it sound like that’s something you are projecting on others, supporting and advocating for the lesser evil it’s doing exactly that, it’s the rest of the world that pay the most for what the US government is doing.

3500 people died in one day due to extreme heat in India.

The pedophile trump didn’t start climate change, you can blame the red and blue party for that, both parties served capitalism and corporations for a century and boycotted people who tried to change the system for good.

Tell me how little those lives mean to you.

I’m the one advocating for human lives and you are calling me out for it

Tell me you’re fine with 3500 deaths - the vast majority being children, the elderly, pregnant women and chronically ill

I’m not and that’s why i’m arguing we shouldn’t vote for the parties that enabled this to happen. The genocide in gaza is just the tip of the iceberg of what the US government has been involved with.

on top of hundreds of Gazan children just to keep your moral purity. Palestinians are still being murdered, but at least the excess mountain of human suffering let you feel good about yourself.

I’ve never argued that, that’s more what you are doing right now.

Lol, how so?

To dissolve a party you need to first start by creating a schism within the party itself.

It’s like arguing that to walk on the bottom surface of the earth you need magnetic boots, it only works if you assume that earth is flat and magnetic. You are making an argument on top of duverger’s law taking it for granted as a mathematical law, you are not supposed to do that.

I mean it uses previous elections as evidence to support a theory based on a logical deduction. Your claim is like saying the laws around gravity are only based on previous observations of how gravity functions. That every step you take “changes the data”.

Each election is different from another and has different parties running which means that each time the variables are different and unpredictable (you cannot mathematically predict what people will vote for in 5 years and which parties will run)

“Thomas R. Palfrey argued Duverger’s law can be proven mathematically at the limit when the number of voters approaches infinity for one single-winner district and where the probability distribution of votes is known, rational strategic voting forces a single-winner plurality system to collapse into a two-party competition.”

I argue that unless you can read the future you cannot prove mathematically what people are going to vote for.

Lol. You’re like a brain damaged parrot that only knows one word.

If the images of dying children makes you laugh you want to take a break and think hard about what you are doing.

Duverger’s law

Like I said… You need to better educate yourself about civics and political science.

You are taking this law for granted and building another of your own on top of it. This theory looks mainly based on observation of previous elections, it’s not much different than arguing that fascists will get in power again because they have already done so plenty of times in the past. Each election a new party can show up and change the data, educate yourself on how math works if you want to school others on anything scientific.

Because in a close red vs blue election, if the red can create a schism in the blues party that drives some of their voters towards a different party with more progressive views, then they can win without having to gain more voters.

In a democratic election each party has the same changes of winning, you are assuming the world is divided into two factions that will never vote for anything that isn’t red or blue.

33% people vote blue, 33% people vote red , 34% people vote third party. Third party wins.

https://archivegenocide.com/

https://genocide.live/

This is what is happening to people in gaza and nearby territories. Go watch the videos of dying children and tell me again you are fine with the government killing only 100 of them instead of 300

Seems like a great way to make sure that the party never improves…

If the party you are trying to improve is evil and corrupted as fuck you have more chances to improve humanity not associating yourself with them. Your argument is like trying to improve nazism within the nazi party.

That’s a idiotic generalization. Yes, Democrats have historically supported unjust wars. However, they still have geopolitical strategies that differ from conservatives. There is zero chance that Kamala would have broken up the Iran nuclear deal and gone to war with Iran…

You are speculating what someone endorsing a genocide where thousand of kids died would have done.

Telling people to disregard the politician and only focus on the party does nothing but serve the fascist currently running the government.

If you actually want to fight fascists you want to promote something better than voting for the lesser evil fascist

Like it or not those 3rd parties mathematically have no feasible path to overtaking the two parties in control without dissolving one first. To dissolve a party you need to first start by creating a schism within the party itself.

What twisted logic are you on? Third parties can run on their own and not be affiliated with the red and blue party

Ignoring this is just willfully ignorant and is actually a strategy that the two parties employ to split votes from their main adversary.

This is propaganda the government spreads around to keep all the votes on red and blue and never lose their duopoly in power. If red and blue want to win elections they try to get the votes on themself, why would they want promote third parties that their own supporters could vote for? Trump is the most unpopular president in history, if a third party was more popular it would probably get more votes from previous red supporters than blue

How are they not democratic?

Every couple of months a brand new movie comes out and millions of people go to watch it because they hear about it on ads. It takes less than a month to make something popular among the public.

Again, you are speculating what a criminal who supported a genocide would have done. If someone is ok with murdering children that’s enough not to trust them on any issues.

I will thus vote Democrat, as that is the only rational thing to do.

If you were alive in the 1940 the only rational thing to do would have been to grab a gun and fight the nazi. I’m not suggesting anyone should go to war but there’s no rationality in supporting a system that is rotten to the core. You are free to vote whoever you want but supporting the democrat party and claiming that to vote them is the only rational thing to do is simply not true.

Bernie figured this out and works within the vehicle of the Democratic Party. I wish people would pick up the damn clue from him.

Personally i’ve figured out that this guy does nothing but propaganda for the red and blue party, gate keeping votes that could go to other parties and actually threat this corrupted system

If that were the case, why don’t any of the DSA candidates run on their own party?

If you would rather run with a party endorsing a genocide than with another i’m gonna guess it’s because you are actually fine with their policies. There are more parties than red or blue.

The world isn’t divided in left and right, you are still assuming that voting for a third party is voting for blue.

Yes … And do you think that the few politicians who do not support Israeli genocide should also be blamed for it?

If you are part of a party that support it then the blame is on you too.

that does not fit within Kamala’s geopolitical ambitions.

It didn’t fit trump “no more wars” policy too, until he did it.

War has always fit red and blue geopolitical ambitions, always.

You are speculating what criminals who supported a genocide would have done.

Sadly, the easiest bet to make

Stop betting and start making serious decisions.