• lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I have proved both of these things. Both With Nader and Perot, as well as showing the difference in actual progressive advancements between third-parties in Democrats is so great that there is little point in supporting a third-party — especially when the FPTP system mathematically goes against them.

    But any time you want to make a bet a 3rd-party candidate winning versus one of the two primary parties, I’ll happily take that bet on money.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      any time you want to make a bet a 3rd-party candidate winning versus one of the two primary parties

      this is a red herring and doesn’t address the substance of our disagreement at all

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s not really a red-herring; it’s simply putting money where your mouth is.

        It’s putting weight behind your words, and it proves my point.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I have proved both of these things.

      you literally cannot prove a counterfactual, so claiming you have reeks of intellectual dishonesty

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s a fact that 3rd-party lose universally all of their elections while often spoiling elections for the primary party that most-closely shares their interests. This is not a counter-factual; this is not Ad Ignorantiam.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s a fact that 3rd-party lose universally all of their elections while often spoiling elections for the primary party that most-closely shares their interests.

          no it’s not. only a single counterexample is necessary to disprove this. but that’s not even what’s at issue here. what’s at issue is what the greater evil would have been. we cannot know what the losers of elections would have done had they won.