@benroyce

Also, that's the last time you're going to call me a liar.

There is nothing further to be gained from this discussion.

@Huntn00

@benroyce

From the way I understand it, ranked choice requires all candidates to get a vote, in order....

I can't *ONLY* vote for the candidates that I want in office, I *MUST* rank all the candidates in order of preference.

If my candidate doesn't win, then my "second choice" (which isn't someone I want in office) gets my vote.

This is not how I wish to vote.

@Huntn00

@Huntn00

Actually, I do...

Ranked Choice means that if the candidate I do like doesn't get enough votes, then the candidates I don't like can "steal" my vote.

Now, tell me, why would I want a candidate that I don't want in office (which describes the last 8 elections - or more - in the US for me) to be able to count my vote for them, rather than for the candidate for which I wish to vote?

@benroyce

@Huntn00

So does the current system...

@benroyce

@benroyce

That's the thing... I only need to use strategy in order to force my viewpoint and candidate on the rest of the country.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but thinking like that is religious in nature, or even cult-like. "Christians" wanting to force the rest of the world to live by their values, for exaample.. They use "strategy" in the same manner you propose in order to influence government.

The true solution is for individuals to vote for themselves-or we get where we're at now.

@benroyce

So, you're saying that I shouldn't vote MY conscience, I shouldn't vote for the candidate that I believe will do the best job in office, simply so that you get your way in the election?

Essentially, you're asking me to vote the way you dictate, instead of the way I feel. Therein lies the fallacy.

The idea that my third party vote "divides" one side or the other is fallacious. My vote was never with your candidate, or the candidate you hate in the first place. Noting gets divided.

@benroyce

The "divides the vote for X party" argument only works if you assume that the third party vote already belonged to one of the two major parties to begin with - and it doesn't.

@benroyce

If that's the case, then voting third party would have no effect on the other two parties.

I've been told that my vote for a third party helped Harris in the last election... I've been told that my third party vote helped Trump in the last election.

Both can't be true.. and if they are, then I need to be arrested and jailed for voter fraud, because that means I voted three times with one vote.

Third party voters are voting their conscience, as they should, and divides nothing. -c-

@benroyce

I don't agree on the necessity of Ranked Choice.

In the Presidential elections, the candidates with the most electoral votes wins.

It doesn't matter if there are 2 or 20 parties.

The system was set up before the "two parties" even existed. The first few elections were party-free; candidates published what they stood for, and people voted based on their wishes.

If you vote third party, it's because you don't agree with the left or the right, or their candidates, and that's all.

@benroyce

Pretty much why I've voted third party for the last six elections...

I keep hoping more people do so, so a third party can get into the debates and provide another point of view, and someone else to vote for.

Maybe the rise of a third party will make the other two pull their heads out of their butts and do the job right, because NEITHER party has done so in recent memory....

@benroyce

I agree.. both parties need to give us candidates we can vote FOR, instead of candidates to vote AGAINST...