coolbeans said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Can you really count somebody as an "option" in a presidential election when they have no chance whatsoever of winning?

It's kind of like betting on somebody on a boxing undercard to win the title fight. Like, they're associated with it and they'll be there, but they aren't actually even in the title fight.

Considering how "option" is clearly defined and is not contingent on one's chances of winning?  Yes, you can.  This principle you're suggesting can only lead to worse outcomes.

Plus, I just find it ironic to see anyone (here or elsewhere) display actual glee behind this decision when they're incredibly likely to use "anti-democratic" as a cudgel when gauging the morality of other political decisions.  That's disregarded the moment it's inconvenient to you.  It's like your candidate has a birthright to another's protest vote just because this is--once again--the most important presidential election of our lifetimes and I don't want to hear about 3rd parties.

Every presidential election is the most important one.

Other countries have solutions for the problem though. May it be ranked choice voting (like in Australia) or a runoff voting (like in France). But the abscense of such solutions is no reason to block third-parties to run.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter