|
VitalSigns posted:Correct, I want to see whether anyone will have the stones to be consistent with their Lesser Evilism and say they'd throw gay people to the wolves to win a short-term electoral victory. "Lesser Evilism" implies that it is, in fact, the lesser evil. So yeah, I'd do it. It sucks and I won't be happy about it but I'd feel a lot worse if instead of "no LGBTQ protections" we got "mandatory conversion therapy". I know that's cold comfort for gay/trans people, but until we are rid of FPTP voting systems it's unfortunately what we're left with.
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:And next year, you get to choose between 'mandatory conversion therapy' and 'execution'. Or maybe next year I can choose between 'better LGBTQ protections' or 'the same as they are'. You're also responding to an answer I gave towards a hypothetical scenario with a slippery slope. Not exactly sure what you're trying to do here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
If you're hoping to hear me make some defense of the dems' stupid practices then I am going to disappoint you. Everything you talk about comes as a consequence from a FPTP voting system. As such, Duverger's Law reigns supreme. And again, you're indirectly criticizing me with a slippery slope argument in response to a hypothetical.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 08:00
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Thing is that it doesn't. There's nothing in Duverger's law that requires both parties to be lovely, that's just a result of the choices that bad dems have been making for the past few decades. It does however demonstrate that voting third party is a pointless endeavor and that's my rational for making the choice and voting for one of the two parties that best represents my position. That was ultimately what the hypothetical was about and what this thread is about, isn't it? Everything beyond that needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. And as usual I consider third party voting to be irrational, and I would never abstain from voting. In short, yes, I advocate for such voting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 10:30
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Why is it so controversial to put forth the notion that you have to give voters a reason to vote for you to make them go out to vote for you? I'm not arguing against this. Cerebral Bore posted:Do you even know what Duverger was actually saying? Because he pretty explicitly rejected this absolutism that you're describing here. Like, the dude was making a descriptive statement and you're trying to paint it as normative, which is kinda dishonest. Hardly? Sure Duverger believed that it was possible for more parties to come out from the older parties, but we have few historical cases of that happening, especially in America. Cerebral Bore posted:Then, of course, there's the detail that your approach doesn't work in reality. Explain. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Mar 3, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 10:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
I need to ask, are all of you here just trying to justify your inaction or third-party votes? Because if so, then this topic is a waste of everyone's time. I'm not hearing any good arguments against the ideas in the OP.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 22:41
|
|