If Clinton, Trump, and Did Not Vote were presidential candidates in 2016 - eviltoast
  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    What if “didn’t vote” counted as “voted for both options, they’re equally wonderful and we’d be happy either way”?

      • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Not really, did not vote is exactly the same as voted for the winner. In a FPTP not voting is saying whoever wins, that’s what I wanted.

    • hightrix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’ll take one good option. That’s all I ask, someone to vote for, not as a vote against the other person.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        The problem with a Presidential system is that there are plenty of eligible candidates. There just aren’t any “electable” ones. Even within a given state, you often only have one “electable” option, because your state is going to tilt 5-30pts towards that person anyway.

        One of the appeals of a small-district parliamentary process (as seen in pretty much every other functioning liberal democracy) is that you don’t need to choose between Old Racist Fuck and Coconut Lady. You can focus your attention on local politics and send up an MP aligned with a regional party willing to form coalition on the condition they can bring back some benefits to their community.

        But that requires you to have elected officials you can actually meet in your neighborhood, rather than minor aristocrats who govern from impenetrable gerrymanders spread across a 50 mile territory.