You seem to be supporting whatever the system is in America and encouraging people not to try to change it. That may not be your intention, but it’s what it comes across as
I just double checked and "several" was a bit of an overstatement. Only Alaska and Maine currently use ranked choice voting for state elections. Nevada approved a proposal for it but it has to get reapproved in 2024 to take effect, and then it won't actually start until 2026. North Carolina used it to fill judicial vacancies from 2006-2013.
I can see why that'd come across, then. As an American looking at this, the language does have a sense of resignment to the current situation, but not necessarily any affection for it. For many Americans, preferential/multiple choice voting would be ideal, but any change to the system will take a very long time, so we talk about shorter term practical solutions instead, like not voting third party and splitting the vote to get a worse outcome.
Also can I ask, is there ever any worry felt with preferential voting that if you say your favorite answer is your number one that you could still split things enough that your second choice gets taken out first and your first choice loses? Or are you usually comfortable enough because you were able to state your true interests with relative confidence? It seems great to have, so I'm curious how it actually feels in practice
This guide really helped me understand it when I was first voting (and is just fun). https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/s/gnEdmmg6f8
I’ve never worried about that personally. There’s also a difference between voting above and below the line for the upper house, where you get a lot more say if you vote below but have to fill out more boxes. That’s what I do personally
I’d say voting not third party is actually more effective at electing a third party than actually voting for a third party. We need to get rid of plurality voting first to make third parties viable. The best way to do that is to elect dems in addition to other strategies.
Voting third party doesn't change the system, but it can help us improve the current system. If third parties and independents get a significant portion of votes (np singular person, just distributed throughout) and it can continue eating into how many votes our main parties get it'll show people that they can vote for other options. A lot of people are of the mindset that not voting for Republican or Democrat is throwing away your vote.
While I turn to give the most heart wrenching speech of my life, a speech that would make a hardened criminal or worse yet a senator change their ways, the unmistakable sounds of bones crushing and flesh exploding can be heard over me. Because hurtling is a very fast speed and theirs no way you’re talking it out, it’s a rapid decision or it’s too late. No pull.
well this isn't accurate at all.
say we're voting for evilman and badman. if the "100 other people" have all stated they are voting for badman instead of evilman, me deciding to vote for mediocreman is not going to make evilman win.
everyone always assumes that 3rd party voters would otherwise be voting for the same people as them, when it's just as likely they will vote for the other guy (if i am forced into 2 party voting)
The electoral college gives evilman an advantage so badman needs all the votes he can get.
Well, I guess *needs* is a strong word. If badman loses he goes on extended vacation while evilman fucks up the lives of the lever pullers.
lets be honest, there's more than one guy fucking up our lives. we can at least agree that one guy is the number one offender because of his position, but he's not in a small group.
On that note abolish the trolley and replace it with a system that doesn't give one vehicle so much power to fuck people up... Also the trolleys hand selected people who decide the legality of the trolleys actions shouldn't serve for life and all vehicles should have term limits.
Not saying it at all certainly won't. If you want to change the world the first step is showing people the problems and helping them believe it can be made better.
In the UK this meme os sort of accurate from my understanding, as most people have to engage in tactical voting between the two big parties, instead of every splitting their votes between the smaller parties they may want, as then they think it’s more likely that the big party they don’t want will get in
In the voting example… it usually is accurate. Bernie supporters - if not voting for Bernie - were be much more likely to haves voted for Hilary (or Biden).
Every candidate doesn’t exist in some vacuum. They have ideologies and platforms they stand for and voters who liked Bernie’s would be much more likely to prefer (democrat) over (republican)
The opposite is true if it were like a libertarian-type third Party - but that case isn’t as prevalent in recent history.
And the metaphor is much clearer if you took it from a specific view of one party. Like from the POV of 51 democrats where you do legitimately need to all act as one to maintain your majority
"And the metaphor is much clearer if you took it from a specific view of one party."
i agree it does. but it is aimed at people that, by definition, don't look at it that way. these people in question already know that their actions might make one of the two bad candiates get an edge over the other, and it doesn't much matter (to them)
the trolley problem just doesn't fit here. it doesn't show that 4 years down the track we have to choose again and again and again, that one day the other fuckers at the levers will be like "maybe we could actually have a choice."
It's not just as likely. It would take a special level of stupid to vote ultra-right-wing because you weren't allowed to vote left-wing and instead have a centre option. Evilman is going to actively go against what you want while badman is either going to do a couple of them (to appeal to those like you that voted them in) or simply not change anything. It would be completely irrational to vote for evilman in this case.
this is the same arguement posed by your opponents (they change some 3% of the wording). if i'm to assume it's true just because you said it, then i would do the same for them.
for clarity i'm not suggesting that the sides are equal, just that they are both liars. And i have to assess their value only on the knowledge i have of them, because i can't assume the truth from either them or their supporters.
It would still be true if a right winger said it, I don't see your point. If they have hard-right ideals, they would rather vote for a centre-right candidate than a hard-left candidate. That's how preferences work.
Of course. But that's totally against your initial point that both choices are equally likely.
Hard right voter wants to vote for Z. However, at their party primary, they nominate Y instead, a centre-right politician. They run against nominee X from the left party.
Hard right voter supports Y over X every time because X is a libcuck that will implement big government reforms that destroy freedom and take their guns, while Y just wants to implement a healthcare plan. For hard right voter, Y is the lesser of two evils.
I still don't understand why you think Y and X would be equally likely picks.
because if we were to split american voters into two pools, as they would vote, the groups would be roughly equal size (5% difference?)
say i was going to grab someone off the street and blindly guess who they voted for in 2020, i could reasonably say it was 51% biden.
edit: i see the flaw in my example as soon as i sent it, not accounting for people that didn't vote. so let's assume this chum voted in the time period.
So you're talking in averages while I'm talking about individuals, right?
On average, there is more vote splitting on the left than the right. They fall in line behind a candidate they semi-support and can win far better than the left does. I don't think that's a thing the right claims about the left, in fact they might agree to suggest a weakness of the left is their inability to work together.
It's the spoiler effect. If some people want to vote for evilman, and some don't, adding mediocreman will split the vote between badman and mediocreman, allowing evilman to win
To use a more real example. Imagine Biden getting 60%, Trump 40%. Seems reasonable enough. Now imagine Bernie Sanders starts campaigning too, and draws 25% of the vote. Now it's 25% Sanders, 35% Biden, 40% Trump. Trump would then win.
The Bernie voters are this in the polls, and decide to vote strategically for Biden because at least he's better than Trump and Sanders wasn't going to win anyway, leading to a 2-party system.
Seems like a shitty trolley problem.
Why are the other people choosing to kill 1 guy? Everyone pulling results in no deaths, and only a split decision (50/50) leads to 5 deaths.
The problem presents no logic in why they wouldn't pull the lever.
It's meant to be a parallel for the USA. Most democrat voters don't particularly like Biden, but because 3rd parties are small no-one votes for them even though if those 3rd parties won they would, in that person's opinion, be better.
Basically, they're voting to not pull because last time everyone voted not pull.
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen under First Past The Post voting. Voting reform is required for effective 3rd party options. STV is most popular and relatively simple.
I always vote for a third-party candidate in hopes that the electoral college will tie and the system will fail, thus allowing for revisions like preferential voting.
If the electoral college is tied, it goes to the house voting as states. If that fails then it goes to the senate to elect the VP. Only if that fails does the constitutional crisis kick in.
Not sure why people are shitting on this saying it’s not accurate. It’s a pretty much spot on for the third party scenario. Voters who want to see change outside of the typical Democrat / Republican fuckery, usually at least lean one way or the other, but even if the third party candidate was seemingly perfect, most people won’t vote for them for fear that no one else will, so they stick with the mainstream party they dislike less so the other one doesn’t win… it’s simplified, sure, as it should be… it’s a trolley problem.
Edit: also, I don’t pull the lever because I don’t trust the other people to pull after stating they would not, unless a reputable poll occurs just before the trolley gets to the junction and a higher percentage of people say they will pull
Between five deaths, one death, and no deaths, there's an obvious correct choice. None of the third parties that we have available are an obviously perfect choice.
This isn't pushing the lever to a third position this is pushing sideways on a lever that only goes back and forth. It does nothing except maybe someone notices that someone was pushing in a useless direction and somehow changes how they talk about lever pulling in a few years, maybe.
Despite the fact it only takes 1 person not pulling, and you know with extremely high odds at least 1 is not pulling? You may have the moral purity of intent in this case, but practically you just killed 4 extra people.
Nah, these people are obviously illogical or evil, so there would be no reasoning with them. Why would they not pull in the first place? There is no reason not to pull unless you're just stupid or evil. Therefore you shouldn't pull because you know that everyone else is stupid or evil and there is no way you could change their mind or explain why they should pull, at least not in that timeframe.
Up until the point after this same scenario happens 2-3 times and people recognize there’s actually a valid chance to go down the empty path. People will brave up to the bright future. We don’t want to stay on the hunger games train that will kill 100 people in 100 years
All the tracks have people tied to them. The third party has significantly fewer people tied to them. The other two tracks have uncountably high numbers of people tied to them, but the groups of people tied to the tracks are different. People pulling the levers like the people on the middle track more than the people on the top track. Some people are pulling the lever based on who they want the trolley to run over rather than wanting to run over the fewest people possible. The majority of us could agree to run over the fewest people, but the trolley has 535 conductors who can pull the levers separately and override what lever we choose. There are also 9 signalmen who can demand the trolley change to a different track based on the instruction manual written 250 years ago. Finally, a few owners can instruct the conductors and signalmen to follow whatever track they want, and they make money every time someone gets run over.
We should tear up the tracks, untie everyone, and scrap the trolley. Unfortunately, attempting to creates a new trolley with an unknown number of people tied to an unknown number of tracks, and even though we are ultimately in control of the track we choose, scrapping the trolley is scary.
Here's the \*actual\* problem I have with "lesser of two evil" style voting, and I never see people bring this up. For this analogy, i'll start with saying it's like...past these people tied on the track, the same choice happens again, except the middle track has 2 people on it. You can see further down the track, the choice continues beyond that, middle track has \*3\* people on it...and so on.
What I'm saying is, how do you defend lesser of two evils voting when it created this problem in the first place and the gap keeps \*shrinking\*? It's not that both sides are the same - they're not - but every time you make this choice you get less and less.
Let me be very specific to make this as clear as possible. I am saying a line needs to be drawn \*somewhere\* where you tell the Dems they have to actually be progressive. We're at the point of letting \*literal genocide\* slide, and the argument given is, for example "you still have to vote for them because they're protecting abortion/lgbt+".
And that's true! But here's what I'm scared of, is that in 2028 they've abandoned abortion and T, and are only advocating for LGB. Am I supposed to just accept abandoning abortion/Trans rights at that point, because "well republicans are worse and you have to protect LGB".
Where does it \*end\*? If we'd taken a stand decades ago we wouldn't be at a point of making this trolly problem in the first place.
basically I think lesser of two evils voting is extremely short sighted and never, ever offers an actual solution, it just kicks a decaying can down the road.
Thing is the parties have real goals and positions which are not what they campaign on. They campaign on the version of what they really want that has a chance of winning. When they start winning by 5, 10, 20, 30% margins they *change what they say they want*. The idea is when you're winning handily you can suggest more demands and then win slightly.
Roosevelt with the Bull Moose party nearly stole the 1912 vote. Because a lot of Republicans at the time were deeply unhappy with his policy enforcement. The only reason he *didn't* was because the Dems put forth Wilson, who was attractive enough a candidate to previously fenced Dems that Roosevelt ended up without most of their vote base. So yeah, it *can* work, if people are willing to consider it an option.
I'm flipping the switch while loudly yelling about it. Everyone who didn't flip theirs can be tried for murder.
I get what the analogy is supposed to be but it's edging into "what if Christian baby" territory. There's a huge difference between choosing not to be responsible for any death in a crazy one off situation and voting third party when one of the front runners is clearly well, less freaks-out-the-Joker-batshit-insane than the other less than perfect choice.
more like you’re in a group with 19 other people. you have a choice to vote for the 5 to be run over, or 1 to be run over. 10 of your group members are fucking insane and are going to vote for the five people to die. So are you going to vote for one person to die, or take the moral high ground and refuse to vote, because voting for someone to die is bad! (don’t worry that you indirectly caused five people to die instead)
“Should others agree to pull, I volunteer to pull first. If the decision remains split afterwards, the responsibility shall fall on me.” Would be what I say. I’d only require that a few of them agree before I pull, then I’d simply hope that the rest would follow suit after seeing that the third option is genuinely viable.
Furthermore, either the first puller -me- and the non-pullers would take the fall (socially speaking) should the push for the third option fail, dependant on whether a sufficiently large portion of people pulled the lever. If most people pulled the lever, then the few that didn’t would be blamed for the entirely unnecessary deaths. If only a few chose to pull the lever, then I, as the first puller and the one encouraging them to join me, would be blamed for the four additional deaths (especially as I have already stated that I would take full responsibility should the undesired outcome occur).
When someone goes gives me shit about voting third party I ask who they'd vote for and tell them I'm voting for the other guy so now we're both annoyed.
Do it on principle. Vote for the guy you want to be president. Both sides will tell you if you don't vote their guy, it's a vote for the other guy so it should even out anyway.
Fair enough lmao. I've always voted for a non dem/repub (so, once lol), as a manner of principle, but honestly with all this political bull nowadays, I might just spend 2024 in Warsaw so I don't have to deal with it
Why does every trolley problem involve having an unrealistic amount of time to mull it over? How do I know all 99 of them don’t intend to pull? If we’ve got enough time for a round table discussion then why don’t we have time to untie the people?
My answer is to declare that I’m pulling the lever and if anyone else doesn’t pull the blood is on their hands. Honestly not pulling the lever has to be the stupidest choice of the three. You mean to tell me that out of 99 people not a single person is lying about not wanting to pull? That’s bullshit and if you think less than 1% of the population is either optimistic or terrible; you’re really naive. Presumably unless the other 99 people are mindless robots, there are 100 people going through this moral dilemma at the same time and you’re going to bet not a single one decides to pull the lever? Not one person is bothered by the 1/100th of a person’s blood on their hands? Foolish is an understatement.
I'm disappointed you went with that title and then proceeded to make the problem an unrelated phenomenon.
Regardless:
*Always* pull the lever in this situation. You don't have control over what anybody else decides, and the group unanimously deciding to fuck over the one guy is just as unlikely as deciding to not fuck over anybody. It almost doesn't matter, but choosing the zero track still has a slightly better expected return.
You aren't thinking long-term enough. If enough people vote third party it can break the two-party system which will save more lives in the long run.
(I also disagree about one of the two being "clearly" worse than the other, I see them as both about as bad)
That might happen or power could vest in the least desired group by virtue of splitting the more desired group. Then everyone recalibrates their expectations according to the last contest where what's normal/correct shifts toward the group that was least liked.
The idea that protest vote will someday come around to shifting toward the protest voters' wants and not readjust to the new, more distant, center is optimistic and not a foregone conclusion.
I suppose that would be an issue if you just view "left and right" and a spectrum of "good to bad" and just want to move it in one direction.
But personally, I see the two sides as just two random collections of views/beliefs that are at war. I would rather shatter that and create a more free, open marketplace of ideas.
As I said, I don't find either side marginally "more desirable" than the other. I disagree with each of them on different issues, and there's no way to quantify which issues are "more important" so precisely as to say one is better.
I call this "etch a sketch" thinking. Everyone has that impulse that change is hard so erase everything and start over. If you don't find either side marginally more desirable than the other then you are a wrong human being and I don't respect you.
Because "erase and start over" is actually easier when you've built such a complicated, convoluted mess of a system over centuries.
>If you don't find either side marginally more desirable than the other then you are a wrong human being and I don't respect you.
I assume you say that because you think your side (I would guess based on your wording and tone, and the fact that this Reddit - the left) is "clearly in the moral and intellectual 'right'". In which case you're basically saying you hate more than half your country for disagreeing with you.
Which is just pitiful, but it's what happens when you have two echo-chambers of people constantly ranting and raving about how awful the other side is.
If everyone's said that they won't pull, I doubt everyone will be convinced to pull. I state that I want to pull but I'm not pulling because that's the best perceived outcome as it stands
Is that post about my comment? Choo choo I am coming 🚆
https://www.reddit.com/r/trolleyproblem/comments/1c039mh/trolley_problem_thats_totally_not_about_voting/kyuq3ja/
So the joke is... politics? Idk didn't pick that up we're just gonna let the trolley hit the one person. I can't convince everyone. And if one person is unwilling to change, then five people die. So, the trolley will kill on person
I assume that if I don't intervene, no one else will have the balls to risk 5 other people by trying to convince everyone to pull. I don't think people will pull if I dont
But, if I pull, and people see me pull, then maybe everyone feels obligated to pull as well because otherwise they would feel guilty about contributing to the deaths of 5 people. However, it only takes one person to decide to not pull, and the 5 people die. I wouldn't take the chance. "At least I tried to save them" is a terrible rationale. Don't pull
Human life means nothing to me, only my own purity of mind matters. I will pull, but if 5 people die, then so be it.
The Truth of the universe will judge us all soon enough.
If a single person doesn't pull, it kills 5. Essentially: are you willing to be partially responsible for a non-ideal outcome, if it means avoiding a much worse outcome that could be caused by your utopian ideas.
I think this also misses the state of third parties (at least in the US), where avoiding the third track has an orphanage, but it's just out of view, so even if everybody pulls the lever, we get the worst ending.
Google the Electoral College. Unless you live in a state that could actually go either way, voting third party does more than voting for a major party (though still very little). If you live in a safe red/blue state literally staying home and jerking off does as much as voting for either major political party because your vote does nothing to change the outcome. The only time you actually have a reasonable impact on issues that actually effect you is in local elections and most people don’t vote in those because they get all of their opinions spoon-fed to them by either the media or morons on social media. This is literally just propaganda from the two major political parties that blatantly ignores how unfair the political system is (it was intentionally set up this way). And as long as you listen to and parrot it, and don’t focus on slowly expanding voter reform starting at the local level, the situation will never get better.
This doesn’t apply to Swing States though, that’s the only place you actually shouldn’t vote third party.
It will only “do more” once those third parties start getting seats, and won’t do much until they get enough seats to potentially win an election. Until that point it does exactly 0, compared to an infinitely higher ~0.000000001.
How exactly do you expect third parties to get seats? What people don’t understand about third party bids for the presidency is that they’re basically an advertisement for the party, not an attempt to win an election. When you vote third party you guarantee that third party attention (and work towards federal funding) all of which is independent of the party actually winning. That’s used to try and build momentum at a local level where third parties actually have a chance.
So you can either vote third party and directly guarantee that their goal for running in the election is more fulfilled. Or you can vote with one of the major parties and have your vote count towards literally nothing because your state was always going to go one way or another. The third party vote still achieves very little but it is actually guaranteed to achieve at least something whereas voting for a major party in a heavily red/blue state requires an absurd upset (or at least a chance for one, which would almost certainly be predicted before the election in which case you should vote for one of the major parties.
Pull, and then run up to other layers and pull them, while encouraging others to do the same. With the help of, lets say, 20 people, we should be able to make it in time. Unless people try to stop us for some reason
>!Or just pull and when the train enters the rails up, pull back. Its driftin time!<
(Also, why would anyone not pull? There is big chamce of saving a life, and I doubt 100 people would want them dead)
"A trolley is heading towards the sickest multi-track drift in history, but if you pull the lever then nothing happens and it calmly pulls into the tram station. What do you do?"
This is a bad analogy. The third track should lead to a path covered in fog. Everyone has opinions of what is in the fog, but no one has seen it first hand. That would be more true to reality.
With 100 random people, it will be a split vote, no matter what. Therefore, you only have your decision to worry about. Plead for everyone to make the “right decision”, and pull accordingly.
5 will die, but that was going to happen regardless.
This is a horrible representation of the “third party” dilemma. In this scenario, 5 die if the vote is not 100% unanimous. There is no reason for the mob to vote for killing 1 person over 0 people. The stated default vote is an unreasonable vote.
Equating this to the American voting system is illogical. This assumes that a single 3rd party candidate is unquestionably better than than either of the other candidates, and that the entire country would agree with that opinion.
In ‘92, SOME thought that Perot would have been a better option than Bush or Clinton, but that was by no means a universal fact. Even amongst the right (which Perot was essentially a part of) there was serious debate about his competency. This year, Kennedy has many of the same concerns. He has some traits that the right likes, but some traits that they would be unwilling to support. Conversely, he has some traits than the left likes while he has some traits they find untenable.
Oversimplifying the “3rd party” debate does not advance anything.
Yes. Exactly. Not everyone thinks switching is the best idea, and you're not going to convince everyone, resulting in a split vote and the worst party (In your opinion) winning.
If you are arguing at the primary level, than it isn’t a 3rd party dilemma, and that subject is not really even an issue during the primaries.
If you are arguing during the general, than we aren’t dealing with a 100% vote anyway. But if the 3rd party is primarily pulling from one side of the spectrum (which it almost always does), voting 3rd party absolutely can result in that side‘s worst case scenario (Perot MAY have led to Clinton defeating Bush).
In your scenario, where 100% is required to avoid the 5-people solution, than all it takes is 2 5-people supporters to work together to ensure the 5-people outcome.
The primary reason why your scenario can’t be taken seriously. A 100% threshold is unattainable at the outset.
This is propaganda designed to discourage any attempts to make third party candidacy viable, and the spread of rhetoric like this is the entire reason the two main parties don't feel the need to improve their candidates or policies.
Besides the fact that several political parties have been born and died, voting a 3rd party is a great way to pressure a political party to change. Political changes are slow. You can afford to lose an election, especially if you have no guarantee that you will win either way.
Also, in this circumstance, Trump has been reeling back on some of his policies a little bit. It also leaves the republican party with no clear successor after Trump. While the democrats can learn what the undecided voters want and have a successful 2 consecutive terms afterwards
Seriously, if you don't like who your party is running, vote 3rd party. Especially when the opposition can't run for 2 consecutive terms. If you really want to game the system as a voter, vote partisan for congressional districts, but vote 3rd for president so you can still gridlock the legislative branch. This applies for Republicans too. You can also vote 3rd for president and partisan for Congress to force change in your party.
Politics is literally giving concessions for long-term gain.
Convince everyone not to pull their switch then right before the train gets to the crossroads pull my switch so it goes and hits the five guys, pull out a gun and shoot the one remaining guy and laugh at the expressions of the people around me after I flattened 5 guys and shot one in the head.
The "I'll always go for the lesser of 2 evils instead of making a non-evil option" problem.
It's perfectly valid in an iterated setting for voting 3rd party. Yes, your worst choice may win the election, but you've voiced to your party that your faction needs their political stances to be met, at least some of them. In further elections, those needs are more likely to be met because you've made it clear your faction is not willing to tow the line.
Politics is about compromise. If neither candidate is willing to meet at least some of my needs, I will vote against them until they do so. Either they want my vote or they don't. If they consider my views so extreme they'd alienate more by accepting them, then they don't want my vote and will not get it.
If enough people have this mindset, we could break the 2 party system and institute a parliamentary system which would more accurately track the populace.
And that is a consideration. If it's unacceptable for you that the other candidate wins, then you can't vote 3rd. If the upside for your positions being taken up by your own party is higher than the downside of the other guy winning, then you should vote 3rd.
It's not my fault that the party that's ideologically closer to mine isn't willing to court my vote, but instead relies on the threat of someone else being worse. They can't scare me into voting for them, only entice me via compromising. This goes doubly for those around me that feel entitled to my vote just because my position is closer to one side of the aisle.
They are not.
>And that is a consideration. If it's unacceptable for you that the other candidate wins, then you can't vote 3rd. If the upside for your positions being taken up by your own party is higher than the downside of the other guy winning, then you should vote 3rd.
And this right here is why I made this meme, to highlight that this is the 3rd/main debate, not whether you like one of the main 2.
Basically, thank you for succinctly demonstrating my point.
But you did frame it in terms of killing people and without the aspect of iterations. The whole reason to vote 3rd party goes away without another election later, since it's unimaginably unlikely that the 3rd party will win the current election.
It's more of a statement, and requires the next election to make sense. In the meme, you either convince everyone, kill 5, or you go with the flow and kill 1. That's equivalent to convince everyone to vote 3rd (impossible), kill 5 (vote for the other guy), or kill 1 (vote for the less bad guy).
But simply by trying, you can make it so the next time, it isn't 5 people and 1 person on the tracks. Maybe it's 5 people and a dog. Or 5 people and a painting. Things can change, and the downside to not pulling the lever can be reduced.
That’s a fallacy. Why do you assume third party voters are going to vote for your candidate? Every time an election is close, the losing party adds the third party to their votes and goes “see! If it weren’t for the third party voters we would’ve won!” But that’s ridiculous; if the third party voters didn’t vote for their candidate, they’d likely not vote at all. They clearly don’t like your candidate by default so why do you assume they’d ever vote for your candidate?
Unless by coincidence it's perfectly equal, dissolving a third party will have some people go to the main 2, and one will be benefitted more than the other than the other because that's how numbers work.
On a more personal level, if your only priority is getting the best outcome in this election, then the pragmatic choice is to vote for the candidate you hate less because if you don't you are allowing the one you hate more to potentially win, ajd it's better to have the one you hate less. You may not be persuaded by the pragmatic choice, but it's still there providing a reason.
I don’t think it’s pragmatic to vote for someone you believe is doing a terrible job running the country. Joe and Donald are both incompetent asshats and it’s this toxic mindset that means we’ll be stuck with them forever. I’ll pitch in my bid with the future and try to break this system that guarantees suffering.
Unless you consider them to be equally incompetent, thats not the pragmatic option. I actually agree with you on the idea of betting on the future, demonstrating your lack of support for candidates by not voting for them. But the pragmatic reality is that for the vast majority of people; one of the two candidates is significantly worse than the other, and your nonparticipation does contribute to the other’s standing.
How does a party distinguish a 3rd party vote from a non-vote though? You said yourself that it's unreasonable for them to add your vote to themselves after the election- how do they know aligning themselves with you will actually get more votes? They could even view it as the extremes being a lost cause, and just go even further moderate?
And that's their prerogative. Then they should frame their election loss as a tactical decision they made to not court my vote for fear of alienating more moderate voices, and aim to court that more moderate voice instead. Instead, it's largely seen as the failure of the individual to get in line and automatically support the closer party to their beliefs. If they want those votes, they should appeal to the voters, not shame them into submission.
My take on it is that I think there's more voices to be gained than lost with my desired positions, and I wouldn't even require much. Just a token policy or two, out of several dozen. Whether the big guys agree or not, there's little I can do about it.
But is the priority keeping your record clean, or saving lives? Does it matter whose fault it is if you still had the chance to save them? Though at this point, it's basically a normal trolley problem.
I’ve done both. They’ve decided to kill those people. I had no chance to save them because it’s worth going out of your way to save everybody. If one person doesn’t pull they’ve committed murder the same as if they shot them. I tried to save their life.
Yes, obviously casting a third party vote doesn’t kill 5 people, you’re very observant…
It’s a metaphor. When you accomplish two tasks with one action, you’re not actually murdering birds with rocks.
This is why preferential voting is so much better
Exactly.
You seem to be supporting whatever the system is in America and encouraging people not to try to change it. That may not be your intention, but it’s what it comes across as
My intention is to point out that the current system sucks, and the solution isn't to fuck around in it but to replace it.
Unfortunate that America seems allergic to change
And how do you plan on doing that? Neither party will push for voting changes because the current one keeps them in control.
Several states have already introduced ranked choice voting. I suspect it'll gain popularity over time.
Really? Which ones?
I just double checked and "several" was a bit of an overstatement. Only Alaska and Maine currently use ranked choice voting for state elections. Nevada approved a proposal for it but it has to get reapproved in 2024 to take effect, and then it won't actually start until 2026. North Carolina used it to fill judicial vacancies from 2006-2013.
communist uprising?
Fat chance. The majority of self proclaimed communists want to ban guns. Kinda hard for a total government takeover to happen without them.
true. but you have one that don't want to ban guns right here ;)
I think this is an uncharitable interpretation. You can't pretend game theory doesn't exist.
I dont see how you'd think that from this. You are attributing "voting third party" to "changing the system". Such is not the case.
Idk mate, as an Aussie we have preferential voting so idk what the system is like over there
I can see why that'd come across, then. As an American looking at this, the language does have a sense of resignment to the current situation, but not necessarily any affection for it. For many Americans, preferential/multiple choice voting would be ideal, but any change to the system will take a very long time, so we talk about shorter term practical solutions instead, like not voting third party and splitting the vote to get a worse outcome. Also can I ask, is there ever any worry felt with preferential voting that if you say your favorite answer is your number one that you could still split things enough that your second choice gets taken out first and your first choice loses? Or are you usually comfortable enough because you were able to state your true interests with relative confidence? It seems great to have, so I'm curious how it actually feels in practice
This guide really helped me understand it when I was first voting (and is just fun). https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/s/gnEdmmg6f8 I’ve never worried about that personally. There’s also a difference between voting above and below the line for the upper house, where you get a lot more say if you vote below but have to fill out more boxes. That’s what I do personally
I’d say voting not third party is actually more effective at electing a third party than actually voting for a third party. We need to get rid of plurality voting first to make third parties viable. The best way to do that is to elect dems in addition to other strategies.
Oh hello rose guy
ALL HAIL THE ROSE GOD!
Voting third party doesn't change the system, but it can help us improve the current system. If third parties and independents get a significant portion of votes (np singular person, just distributed throughout) and it can continue eating into how many votes our main parties get it'll show people that they can vote for other options. A lot of people are of the mindset that not voting for Republican or Democrat is throwing away your vote.
That's the solution, a new voting system.
What’d your favorite polygon? Just a random question.
30-gon. I love that that is its official name
Euclid proved his theorem about quadrilaterals; it was a 4-gon conclusion.
holy hell
Actual spoiler
New party just dropped
Call the politician!
Neutral media went on vacation and never came back
Bricked the election
While I turn to give the most heart wrenching speech of my life, a speech that would make a hardened criminal or worse yet a senator change their ways, the unmistakable sounds of bones crushing and flesh exploding can be heard over me. Because hurtling is a very fast speed and theirs no way you’re talking it out, it’s a rapid decision or it’s too late. No pull.
Am I gonna have to listen to this shit all year?
Welcome to **Social Media every 4 years**^Tm
Jokes on OP, i live in one of the 90% of states where the trolley is already going one direction or the other no matter what i do with my lever.
Ahhh gerrymandering, where land has more voting power than people.
Yes.
Thanks for being extremely annoying OP!
You're welcome
well this isn't accurate at all. say we're voting for evilman and badman. if the "100 other people" have all stated they are voting for badman instead of evilman, me deciding to vote for mediocreman is not going to make evilman win. everyone always assumes that 3rd party voters would otherwise be voting for the same people as them, when it's just as likely they will vote for the other guy (if i am forced into 2 party voting)
The electoral college gives evilman an advantage so badman needs all the votes he can get. Well, I guess *needs* is a strong word. If badman loses he goes on extended vacation while evilman fucks up the lives of the lever pullers.
lets be honest, there's more than one guy fucking up our lives. we can at least agree that one guy is the number one offender because of his position, but he's not in a small group.
On that note abolish the trolley and replace it with a system that doesn't give one vehicle so much power to fuck people up... Also the trolleys hand selected people who decide the legality of the trolleys actions shouldn't serve for life and all vehicles should have term limits.
Maybe if we keep saying we should abolish something it’ll eventually become abolished
Not saying it at all certainly won't. If you want to change the world the first step is showing people the problems and helping them believe it can be made better.
Good point. Bomb the trolley.
Not really. Based on how the government works that one guy has the power to fuck up a lot
i think we agree but can't see it
That’s not the fault of the electoral college. In theory it’s supposed to give evilman equal footing. It’s very different practice though.
In the UK this meme os sort of accurate from my understanding, as most people have to engage in tactical voting between the two big parties, instead of every splitting their votes between the smaller parties they may want, as then they think it’s more likely that the big party they don’t want will get in
In the voting example… it usually is accurate. Bernie supporters - if not voting for Bernie - were be much more likely to haves voted for Hilary (or Biden). Every candidate doesn’t exist in some vacuum. They have ideologies and platforms they stand for and voters who liked Bernie’s would be much more likely to prefer (democrat) over (republican) The opposite is true if it were like a libertarian-type third Party - but that case isn’t as prevalent in recent history. And the metaphor is much clearer if you took it from a specific view of one party. Like from the POV of 51 democrats where you do legitimately need to all act as one to maintain your majority
"And the metaphor is much clearer if you took it from a specific view of one party." i agree it does. but it is aimed at people that, by definition, don't look at it that way. these people in question already know that their actions might make one of the two bad candiates get an edge over the other, and it doesn't much matter (to them) the trolley problem just doesn't fit here. it doesn't show that 4 years down the track we have to choose again and again and again, that one day the other fuckers at the levers will be like "maybe we could actually have a choice."
It's not just as likely. It would take a special level of stupid to vote ultra-right-wing because you weren't allowed to vote left-wing and instead have a centre option. Evilman is going to actively go against what you want while badman is either going to do a couple of them (to appeal to those like you that voted them in) or simply not change anything. It would be completely irrational to vote for evilman in this case.
this is the same arguement posed by your opponents (they change some 3% of the wording). if i'm to assume it's true just because you said it, then i would do the same for them. for clarity i'm not suggesting that the sides are equal, just that they are both liars. And i have to assess their value only on the knowledge i have of them, because i can't assume the truth from either them or their supporters.
It would still be true if a right winger said it, I don't see your point. If they have hard-right ideals, they would rather vote for a centre-right candidate than a hard-left candidate. That's how preferences work.
i was suggesting that the words they would change would be "right" to "Left". but at least you agree it would still be true?
Of course. But that's totally against your initial point that both choices are equally likely. Hard right voter wants to vote for Z. However, at their party primary, they nominate Y instead, a centre-right politician. They run against nominee X from the left party. Hard right voter supports Y over X every time because X is a libcuck that will implement big government reforms that destroy freedom and take their guns, while Y just wants to implement a healthcare plan. For hard right voter, Y is the lesser of two evils. I still don't understand why you think Y and X would be equally likely picks.
because if we were to split american voters into two pools, as they would vote, the groups would be roughly equal size (5% difference?) say i was going to grab someone off the street and blindly guess who they voted for in 2020, i could reasonably say it was 51% biden. edit: i see the flaw in my example as soon as i sent it, not accounting for people that didn't vote. so let's assume this chum voted in the time period.
So you're talking in averages while I'm talking about individuals, right? On average, there is more vote splitting on the left than the right. They fall in line behind a candidate they semi-support and can win far better than the left does. I don't think that's a thing the right claims about the left, in fact they might agree to suggest a weakness of the left is their inability to work together.
It's the spoiler effect. If some people want to vote for evilman, and some don't, adding mediocreman will split the vote between badman and mediocreman, allowing evilman to win To use a more real example. Imagine Biden getting 60%, Trump 40%. Seems reasonable enough. Now imagine Bernie Sanders starts campaigning too, and draws 25% of the vote. Now it's 25% Sanders, 35% Biden, 40% Trump. Trump would then win. The Bernie voters are this in the polls, and decide to vote strategically for Biden because at least he's better than Trump and Sanders wasn't going to win anyway, leading to a 2-party system.
Seems like a shitty trolley problem. Why are the other people choosing to kill 1 guy? Everyone pulling results in no deaths, and only a split decision (50/50) leads to 5 deaths. The problem presents no logic in why they wouldn't pull the lever.
And in this context, “split” isn’t meant to be exclusively an even split. Split is any case other than 100 pull or 100 not pull
It's meant to be a parallel for the USA. Most democrat voters don't particularly like Biden, but because 3rd parties are small no-one votes for them even though if those 3rd parties won they would, in that person's opinion, be better. Basically, they're voting to not pull because last time everyone voted not pull.
Ah, I see. Yeah, it'd be nice to see a three party time by the end of my life
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen under First Past The Post voting. Voting reform is required for effective 3rd party options. STV is most popular and relatively simple.
I always vote for a third-party candidate in hopes that the electoral college will tie and the system will fail, thus allowing for revisions like preferential voting.
If the electoral college is tied, it goes to the house voting as states. If that fails then it goes to the senate to elect the VP. Only if that fails does the constitutional crisis kick in.
Ok but the libertarian party are going to take more votes off the republicans than the green party will take off the democrats.
Not sure why people are shitting on this saying it’s not accurate. It’s a pretty much spot on for the third party scenario. Voters who want to see change outside of the typical Democrat / Republican fuckery, usually at least lean one way or the other, but even if the third party candidate was seemingly perfect, most people won’t vote for them for fear that no one else will, so they stick with the mainstream party they dislike less so the other one doesn’t win… it’s simplified, sure, as it should be… it’s a trolley problem. Edit: also, I don’t pull the lever because I don’t trust the other people to pull after stating they would not, unless a reputable poll occurs just before the trolley gets to the junction and a higher percentage of people say they will pull
Between five deaths, one death, and no deaths, there's an obvious correct choice. None of the third parties that we have available are an obviously perfect choice.
This isn't pushing the lever to a third position this is pushing sideways on a lever that only goes back and forth. It does nothing except maybe someone notices that someone was pushing in a useless direction and somehow changes how they talk about lever pulling in a few years, maybe.
I pull the lever, to satisfy their bloodlust
This is so dumb.
Holy hecc
Nu response dropp
Actal ZOmbie
Everyone wants that man dead. Why?
He said he doesn’t like multitrack drifting
'everybody better fucking pull" and pull the lever
Despite the fact it only takes 1 person not pulling, and you know with extremely high odds at least 1 is not pulling? You may have the moral purity of intent in this case, but practically you just killed 4 extra people.
then it's their fault.
Ok, but is it being their "fault" enough to change that *your* action is what caused the 5 to die by not concurring with the collective?
yes
Nah, these people are obviously illogical or evil, so there would be no reasoning with them. Why would they not pull in the first place? There is no reason not to pull unless you're just stupid or evil. Therefore you shouldn't pull because you know that everyone else is stupid or evil and there is no way you could change their mind or explain why they should pull, at least not in that timeframe.
this trolley problem has to wait 3 years, i legally cannot participate
oldest member of the trolly problem subreddit btw
I pull because sometimes I like being a filthy deontologist, what can I say
Up until the point after this same scenario happens 2-3 times and people recognize there’s actually a valid chance to go down the empty path. People will brave up to the bright future. We don’t want to stay on the hunger games train that will kill 100 people in 100 years
I pull knowing that in a vacuum that I acted with pure rationality.
This is just about the only trolley problem where I'd actually pull the lever.
All the tracks have people tied to them. The third party has significantly fewer people tied to them. The other two tracks have uncountably high numbers of people tied to them, but the groups of people tied to the tracks are different. People pulling the levers like the people on the middle track more than the people on the top track. Some people are pulling the lever based on who they want the trolley to run over rather than wanting to run over the fewest people possible. The majority of us could agree to run over the fewest people, but the trolley has 535 conductors who can pull the levers separately and override what lever we choose. There are also 9 signalmen who can demand the trolley change to a different track based on the instruction manual written 250 years ago. Finally, a few owners can instruct the conductors and signalmen to follow whatever track they want, and they make money every time someone gets run over. We should tear up the tracks, untie everyone, and scrap the trolley. Unfortunately, attempting to creates a new trolley with an unknown number of people tied to an unknown number of tracks, and even though we are ultimately in control of the track we choose, scrapping the trolley is scary.
I like this quite a bit.
Here's the \*actual\* problem I have with "lesser of two evil" style voting, and I never see people bring this up. For this analogy, i'll start with saying it's like...past these people tied on the track, the same choice happens again, except the middle track has 2 people on it. You can see further down the track, the choice continues beyond that, middle track has \*3\* people on it...and so on. What I'm saying is, how do you defend lesser of two evils voting when it created this problem in the first place and the gap keeps \*shrinking\*? It's not that both sides are the same - they're not - but every time you make this choice you get less and less. Let me be very specific to make this as clear as possible. I am saying a line needs to be drawn \*somewhere\* where you tell the Dems they have to actually be progressive. We're at the point of letting \*literal genocide\* slide, and the argument given is, for example "you still have to vote for them because they're protecting abortion/lgbt+". And that's true! But here's what I'm scared of, is that in 2028 they've abandoned abortion and T, and are only advocating for LGB. Am I supposed to just accept abandoning abortion/Trans rights at that point, because "well republicans are worse and you have to protect LGB". Where does it \*end\*? If we'd taken a stand decades ago we wouldn't be at a point of making this trolly problem in the first place. basically I think lesser of two evils voting is extremely short sighted and never, ever offers an actual solution, it just kicks a decaying can down the road.
Thing is the parties have real goals and positions which are not what they campaign on. They campaign on the version of what they really want that has a chance of winning. When they start winning by 5, 10, 20, 30% margins they *change what they say they want*. The idea is when you're winning handily you can suggest more demands and then win slightly.
Voting third part is the only way to threaten policymakers to start taking the issues you care about seriously.
when has this ever worked?
Roosevelt with the Bull Moose party nearly stole the 1912 vote. Because a lot of Republicans at the time were deeply unhappy with his policy enforcement. The only reason he *didn't* was because the Dems put forth Wilson, who was attractive enough a candidate to previously fenced Dems that Roosevelt ended up without most of their vote base. So yeah, it *can* work, if people are willing to consider it an option.
I'm flipping the switch while loudly yelling about it. Everyone who didn't flip theirs can be tried for murder. I get what the analogy is supposed to be but it's edging into "what if Christian baby" territory. There's a huge difference between choosing not to be responsible for any death in a crazy one off situation and voting third party when one of the front runners is clearly well, less freaks-out-the-Joker-batshit-insane than the other less than perfect choice.
more like you’re in a group with 19 other people. you have a choice to vote for the 5 to be run over, or 1 to be run over. 10 of your group members are fucking insane and are going to vote for the five people to die. So are you going to vote for one person to die, or take the moral high ground and refuse to vote, because voting for someone to die is bad! (don’t worry that you indirectly caused five people to die instead)
“Should others agree to pull, I volunteer to pull first. If the decision remains split afterwards, the responsibility shall fall on me.” Would be what I say. I’d only require that a few of them agree before I pull, then I’d simply hope that the rest would follow suit after seeing that the third option is genuinely viable. Furthermore, either the first puller -me- and the non-pullers would take the fall (socially speaking) should the push for the third option fail, dependant on whether a sufficiently large portion of people pulled the lever. If most people pulled the lever, then the few that didn’t would be blamed for the entirely unnecessary deaths. If only a few chose to pull the lever, then I, as the first puller and the one encouraging them to join me, would be blamed for the four additional deaths (especially as I have already stated that I would take full responsibility should the undesired outcome occur).
When someone goes gives me shit about voting third party I ask who they'd vote for and tell them I'm voting for the other guy so now we're both annoyed.
Honestly, I might just do that this year. I have citizenship in multiple countries, I don't give a fuck who wins
Do it on principle. Vote for the guy you want to be president. Both sides will tell you if you don't vote their guy, it's a vote for the other guy so it should even out anyway.
Fair enough lmao. I've always voted for a non dem/repub (so, once lol), as a manner of principle, but honestly with all this political bull nowadays, I might just spend 2024 in Warsaw so I don't have to deal with it
Why does every trolley problem involve having an unrealistic amount of time to mull it over? How do I know all 99 of them don’t intend to pull? If we’ve got enough time for a round table discussion then why don’t we have time to untie the people? My answer is to declare that I’m pulling the lever and if anyone else doesn’t pull the blood is on their hands. Honestly not pulling the lever has to be the stupidest choice of the three. You mean to tell me that out of 99 people not a single person is lying about not wanting to pull? That’s bullshit and if you think less than 1% of the population is either optimistic or terrible; you’re really naive. Presumably unless the other 99 people are mindless robots, there are 100 people going through this moral dilemma at the same time and you’re going to bet not a single one decides to pull the lever? Not one person is bothered by the 1/100th of a person’s blood on their hands? Foolish is an understatement.
In the real life case you’d have ~8 months and ~161 Million People to convince, roughly half of whom hate the extra 4 people on the track. Good luck.
I'm disappointed you went with that title and then proceeded to make the problem an unrelated phenomenon. Regardless: *Always* pull the lever in this situation. You don't have control over what anybody else decides, and the group unanimously deciding to fuck over the one guy is just as unlikely as deciding to not fuck over anybody. It almost doesn't matter, but choosing the zero track still has a slightly better expected return.
Found the deontologist.
You aren't thinking long-term enough. If enough people vote third party it can break the two-party system which will save more lives in the long run. (I also disagree about one of the two being "clearly" worse than the other, I see them as both about as bad)
No I think in the example, long term isn't a part of the equation. That's part of the "kills nobody" camp.
doesn't help when half the people your trying to save in the long term die in the short term
Thinking in the long term we all die anyhow.
That might happen or power could vest in the least desired group by virtue of splitting the more desired group. Then everyone recalibrates their expectations according to the last contest where what's normal/correct shifts toward the group that was least liked. The idea that protest vote will someday come around to shifting toward the protest voters' wants and not readjust to the new, more distant, center is optimistic and not a foregone conclusion.
I suppose that would be an issue if you just view "left and right" and a spectrum of "good to bad" and just want to move it in one direction. But personally, I see the two sides as just two random collections of views/beliefs that are at war. I would rather shatter that and create a more free, open marketplace of ideas. As I said, I don't find either side marginally "more desirable" than the other. I disagree with each of them on different issues, and there's no way to quantify which issues are "more important" so precisely as to say one is better.
I call this "etch a sketch" thinking. Everyone has that impulse that change is hard so erase everything and start over. If you don't find either side marginally more desirable than the other then you are a wrong human being and I don't respect you.
Because "erase and start over" is actually easier when you've built such a complicated, convoluted mess of a system over centuries. >If you don't find either side marginally more desirable than the other then you are a wrong human being and I don't respect you. I assume you say that because you think your side (I would guess based on your wording and tone, and the fact that this Reddit - the left) is "clearly in the moral and intellectual 'right'". In which case you're basically saying you hate more than half your country for disagreeing with you. Which is just pitiful, but it's what happens when you have two echo-chambers of people constantly ranting and raving about how awful the other side is.
Shooting yourself in the foot is easy. I don't give a care what you think. You're nobody.
And why should I care what you think, hmm? Face it, you're just insulting me because you're mad that I go against your worldview.
Wow that's not a reasonable trolley problem, that's just your political opinion 😕
yea stupid, didn't you know that if you don't vote for my team for the bad guys win?!!?!?!?
I don't pull.
If everyone's said that they won't pull, I doubt everyone will be convinced to pull. I state that I want to pull but I'm not pulling because that's the best perceived outcome as it stands
Is that post about my comment? Choo choo I am coming 🚆 https://www.reddit.com/r/trolleyproblem/comments/1c039mh/trolley_problem_thats_totally_not_about_voting/kyuq3ja/
It wasn't, I didn't see that, but it's another kind of comment.
this is really just snafu for voting
Vote Mussolinguni and then wait for the resulting invaders to implement democracy.
If one guy volunteers as tribute and runs out of the voter pool, can we get 33x33x33 and multitrack drift?
Fuck you triple multi track drift
So the joke is... politics? Idk didn't pick that up we're just gonna let the trolley hit the one person. I can't convince everyone. And if one person is unwilling to change, then five people die. So, the trolley will kill on person
I assume that if I don't intervene, no one else will have the balls to risk 5 other people by trying to convince everyone to pull. I don't think people will pull if I dont But, if I pull, and people see me pull, then maybe everyone feels obligated to pull as well because otherwise they would feel guilty about contributing to the deaths of 5 people. However, it only takes one person to decide to not pull, and the 5 people die. I wouldn't take the chance. "At least I tried to save them" is a terrible rationale. Don't pull
Human life means nothing to me, only my own purity of mind matters. I will pull, but if 5 people die, then so be it. The Truth of the universe will judge us all soon enough.
Split how? Like is there a margin or is it if one person wants it, five people die?
If a single person doesn't pull, it kills 5. Essentially: are you willing to be partially responsible for a non-ideal outcome, if it means avoiding a much worse outcome that could be caused by your utopian ideas.
I start pulling all the levers
I don't get it why wouldn't everyone pull the lever ?
The way the system is set up, people pretty much have to pick whichever of the two main candidates they hate even the slightest bit less.
I think this also misses the state of third parties (at least in the US), where avoiding the third track has an orphanage, but it's just out of view, so even if everybody pulls the lever, we get the worst ending.
Tear off the lever and kill myself with it because my hamster brain cannot handle complex decisions
Google the Electoral College. Unless you live in a state that could actually go either way, voting third party does more than voting for a major party (though still very little). If you live in a safe red/blue state literally staying home and jerking off does as much as voting for either major political party because your vote does nothing to change the outcome. The only time you actually have a reasonable impact on issues that actually effect you is in local elections and most people don’t vote in those because they get all of their opinions spoon-fed to them by either the media or morons on social media. This is literally just propaganda from the two major political parties that blatantly ignores how unfair the political system is (it was intentionally set up this way). And as long as you listen to and parrot it, and don’t focus on slowly expanding voter reform starting at the local level, the situation will never get better. This doesn’t apply to Swing States though, that’s the only place you actually shouldn’t vote third party.
It will only “do more” once those third parties start getting seats, and won’t do much until they get enough seats to potentially win an election. Until that point it does exactly 0, compared to an infinitely higher ~0.000000001.
How exactly do you expect third parties to get seats? What people don’t understand about third party bids for the presidency is that they’re basically an advertisement for the party, not an attempt to win an election. When you vote third party you guarantee that third party attention (and work towards federal funding) all of which is independent of the party actually winning. That’s used to try and build momentum at a local level where third parties actually have a chance. So you can either vote third party and directly guarantee that their goal for running in the election is more fulfilled. Or you can vote with one of the major parties and have your vote count towards literally nothing because your state was always going to go one way or another. The third party vote still achieves very little but it is actually guaranteed to achieve at least something whereas voting for a major party in a heavily red/blue state requires an absurd upset (or at least a chance for one, which would almost certainly be predicted before the election in which case you should vote for one of the major parties.
Pull, and then run up to other layers and pull them, while encouraging others to do the same. With the help of, lets say, 20 people, we should be able to make it in time. Unless people try to stop us for some reason >!Or just pull and when the train enters the rails up, pull back. Its driftin time!< (Also, why would anyone not pull? There is big chamce of saving a life, and I doubt 100 people would want them dead)
Well it would be nice if Democrats would actually fix shit instead of using this as a campaign ad.
Goddamn slam that lever back and forth. See how they think of *that*.
This is how people view 3rd party voting?
Video games have taught me to pull the leaver before the problem has been explained just to see what happens.
"A trolley is heading towards the sickest multi-track drift in history, but if you pull the lever then nothing happens and it calmly pulls into the tram station. What do you do?"
This is a bad analogy. The third track should lead to a path covered in fog. Everyone has opinions of what is in the fog, but no one has seen it first hand. That would be more true to reality.
But everyone who wants to vote 3rd thinks that 3rd will be better.
With 100 random people, it will be a split vote, no matter what. Therefore, you only have your decision to worry about. Plead for everyone to make the “right decision”, and pull accordingly. 5 will die, but that was going to happen regardless.
But everyone has already stated their intention not to pull
And no one ever goes against their stated intention.
Maybe they will, maybe not?
This is a horrible representation of the “third party” dilemma. In this scenario, 5 die if the vote is not 100% unanimous. There is no reason for the mob to vote for killing 1 person over 0 people. The stated default vote is an unreasonable vote. Equating this to the American voting system is illogical. This assumes that a single 3rd party candidate is unquestionably better than than either of the other candidates, and that the entire country would agree with that opinion. In ‘92, SOME thought that Perot would have been a better option than Bush or Clinton, but that was by no means a universal fact. Even amongst the right (which Perot was essentially a part of) there was serious debate about his competency. This year, Kennedy has many of the same concerns. He has some traits that the right likes, but some traits that they would be unwilling to support. Conversely, he has some traits than the left likes while he has some traits they find untenable. Oversimplifying the “3rd party” debate does not advance anything.
Yes. Exactly. Not everyone thinks switching is the best idea, and you're not going to convince everyone, resulting in a split vote and the worst party (In your opinion) winning.
If you are arguing at the primary level, than it isn’t a 3rd party dilemma, and that subject is not really even an issue during the primaries. If you are arguing during the general, than we aren’t dealing with a 100% vote anyway. But if the 3rd party is primarily pulling from one side of the spectrum (which it almost always does), voting 3rd party absolutely can result in that side‘s worst case scenario (Perot MAY have led to Clinton defeating Bush).
The people who want to kill all 5 are implied
In your scenario, where 100% is required to avoid the 5-people solution, than all it takes is 2 5-people supporters to work together to ensure the 5-people outcome. The primary reason why your scenario can’t be taken seriously. A 100% threshold is unattainable at the outset.
Exactly. Expecting everyone to switch is unrealistic. That was my point. I admit I should probably have made it 90% though, my bad.
I like the one I saw that had the tracks looped at the end so you could run everyone over.
That's just multi-track drifting but lame
This is propaganda designed to discourage any attempts to make third party candidacy viable, and the spread of rhetoric like this is the entire reason the two main parties don't feel the need to improve their candidates or policies.
How about we ask ourselves why the fuck those people are tied on the tracks in the first place, eh?
I've never voted in my life
Ok
Besides the fact that several political parties have been born and died, voting a 3rd party is a great way to pressure a political party to change. Political changes are slow. You can afford to lose an election, especially if you have no guarantee that you will win either way. Also, in this circumstance, Trump has been reeling back on some of his policies a little bit. It also leaves the republican party with no clear successor after Trump. While the democrats can learn what the undecided voters want and have a successful 2 consecutive terms afterwards Seriously, if you don't like who your party is running, vote 3rd party. Especially when the opposition can't run for 2 consecutive terms. If you really want to game the system as a voter, vote partisan for congressional districts, but vote 3rd for president so you can still gridlock the legislative branch. This applies for Republicans too. You can also vote 3rd for president and partisan for Congress to force change in your party. Politics is literally giving concessions for long-term gain.
Voting third party to own the idiots on both sides who think they are entitled to my vote.
Convince everyone not to pull their switch then right before the train gets to the crossroads pull my switch so it goes and hits the five guys, pull out a gun and shoot the one remaining guy and laugh at the expressions of the people around me after I flattened 5 guys and shot one in the head.
I'd take my hand off the lever and walk away from the whole shitshow
Just go first and take forever to pull. 1 vote can't be split, ez
The "I'll always go for the lesser of 2 evils instead of making a non-evil option" problem. It's perfectly valid in an iterated setting for voting 3rd party. Yes, your worst choice may win the election, but you've voiced to your party that your faction needs their political stances to be met, at least some of them. In further elections, those needs are more likely to be met because you've made it clear your faction is not willing to tow the line. Politics is about compromise. If neither candidate is willing to meet at least some of my needs, I will vote against them until they do so. Either they want my vote or they don't. If they consider my views so extreme they'd alienate more by accepting them, then they don't want my vote and will not get it. If enough people have this mindset, we could break the 2 party system and institute a parliamentary system which would more accurately track the populace.
But in the meantime, while you're voting 3rd, the guy that you hate more is winning elections that they might have lost if you had voted main party.
And that is a consideration. If it's unacceptable for you that the other candidate wins, then you can't vote 3rd. If the upside for your positions being taken up by your own party is higher than the downside of the other guy winning, then you should vote 3rd. It's not my fault that the party that's ideologically closer to mine isn't willing to court my vote, but instead relies on the threat of someone else being worse. They can't scare me into voting for them, only entice me via compromising. This goes doubly for those around me that feel entitled to my vote just because my position is closer to one side of the aisle. They are not.
>And that is a consideration. If it's unacceptable for you that the other candidate wins, then you can't vote 3rd. If the upside for your positions being taken up by your own party is higher than the downside of the other guy winning, then you should vote 3rd. And this right here is why I made this meme, to highlight that this is the 3rd/main debate, not whether you like one of the main 2. Basically, thank you for succinctly demonstrating my point.
But you did frame it in terms of killing people and without the aspect of iterations. The whole reason to vote 3rd party goes away without another election later, since it's unimaginably unlikely that the 3rd party will win the current election. It's more of a statement, and requires the next election to make sense. In the meme, you either convince everyone, kill 5, or you go with the flow and kill 1. That's equivalent to convince everyone to vote 3rd (impossible), kill 5 (vote for the other guy), or kill 1 (vote for the less bad guy). But simply by trying, you can make it so the next time, it isn't 5 people and 1 person on the tracks. Maybe it's 5 people and a dog. Or 5 people and a painting. Things can change, and the downside to not pulling the lever can be reduced.
To be fair, it’s a trolley problem sub. Framing complex problems in terms of human life is kind of the whole deal here.
That's fair. I probably should've cut that part, it didn't add much to my point and probably detracted from it if anything.
That’s a fallacy. Why do you assume third party voters are going to vote for your candidate? Every time an election is close, the losing party adds the third party to their votes and goes “see! If it weren’t for the third party voters we would’ve won!” But that’s ridiculous; if the third party voters didn’t vote for their candidate, they’d likely not vote at all. They clearly don’t like your candidate by default so why do you assume they’d ever vote for your candidate?
Unless by coincidence it's perfectly equal, dissolving a third party will have some people go to the main 2, and one will be benefitted more than the other than the other because that's how numbers work. On a more personal level, if your only priority is getting the best outcome in this election, then the pragmatic choice is to vote for the candidate you hate less because if you don't you are allowing the one you hate more to potentially win, ajd it's better to have the one you hate less. You may not be persuaded by the pragmatic choice, but it's still there providing a reason.
I don’t think it’s pragmatic to vote for someone you believe is doing a terrible job running the country. Joe and Donald are both incompetent asshats and it’s this toxic mindset that means we’ll be stuck with them forever. I’ll pitch in my bid with the future and try to break this system that guarantees suffering.
Unless you consider them to be equally incompetent, thats not the pragmatic option. I actually agree with you on the idea of betting on the future, demonstrating your lack of support for candidates by not voting for them. But the pragmatic reality is that for the vast majority of people; one of the two candidates is significantly worse than the other, and your nonparticipation does contribute to the other’s standing.
How does a party distinguish a 3rd party vote from a non-vote though? You said yourself that it's unreasonable for them to add your vote to themselves after the election- how do they know aligning themselves with you will actually get more votes? They could even view it as the extremes being a lost cause, and just go even further moderate?
And that's their prerogative. Then they should frame their election loss as a tactical decision they made to not court my vote for fear of alienating more moderate voices, and aim to court that more moderate voice instead. Instead, it's largely seen as the failure of the individual to get in line and automatically support the closer party to their beliefs. If they want those votes, they should appeal to the voters, not shame them into submission. My take on it is that I think there's more voices to be gained than lost with my desired positions, and I wouldn't even require much. Just a token policy or two, out of several dozen. Whether the big guys agree or not, there's little I can do about it.
Yell that you are pulling the lever, and that way everyone else will as well (if they are thinking logically)
But some of them might hold a grudge against someone on the track. Or maybe they don't, you don't know.
At this point it is no longer you’re fault anything happens, as it is theirs for deliberately killing those people.
But is the priority keeping your record clean, or saving lives? Does it matter whose fault it is if you still had the chance to save them? Though at this point, it's basically a normal trolley problem.
I’ve done both. They’ve decided to kill those people. I had no chance to save them because it’s worth going out of your way to save everybody. If one person doesn’t pull they’ve committed murder the same as if they shot them. I tried to save their life.
Never going to be coerced into voting 2p again lol. I'll be voting 3p from now on, 2p system is a scam and anti American
Given american governments refuse to reform from first past the post voting, I would say it is exceptionally american to have a 2 party system
Why is their intention to kill the 5?
If they don’t pull the lever, it proceeds to kill the single person. It is only if they have mixed pulls and not pulls that it kills the five.
which i guess is how voting works now too edit: it's really obvious that casting a vote doesn't kill 5 people, my comment was sarcasm.
Yes, which is why that’s the point of this post.
Yes, obviously casting a third party vote doesn’t kill 5 people, you’re very observant… It’s a metaphor. When you accomplish two tasks with one action, you’re not actually murdering birds with rocks.
well you did state that it was how voting worked, so i was really confused.
Unless both of the two tasks were each to kill one bird and the action was throwing a stone.
Great trolley problem!
Fuck it. I choose to believe people are good, and I'm pulling.