Submitted by ADefiniteDescription t3_yor0ro in philosophy
Shufflepants t1_ivpfzng wrote
Reply to comment by TheRoadsMustRoll in The ethics of voting for the 'lesser of two evils' by ADefiniteDescription
>how are people supposed to know in advance of the election that they are voting for losers?
Because we have past data on voting patterns. We have countless examples of third party candidates failing to get even a single electoral vote. We also have plenty of survey data and mountains of other evidence that points to the fact that many voters just vote for whoever has the R next their name every time or whoever has the D next to their name every time. We do have evidence that there are voters who aren't fixed in their voting patterns, and who sometimes vote R, sometimes vote D, and sometimes vote third party; but these non-fixed voters do not represent a large enough proportion of voters to be able to elect a third party on their own. So, we KNOW with very high certainty that in order to win, you MUST win either the voters that only vote D or the voters that only vote R, while also capturing some of the voters that aren't fixed. Therefore, we can rightly conclude that any non-R or non-D candidate has virtually zero chance of winning; more surely than one's chances of winning the powerball.
TheRoadsMustRoll t1_ivphszp wrote
>Because we have past data on voting patterns.
that helped us figure out who would win in 2016?
based on past voting data no black person should ever be voted for because they've only won once in the history of the country.
that's ridiculous. things change. if you discard changes in favor of past mediocrity then you'll always have the same results you always had.
Shufflepants t1_ivpi5dv wrote
>that helped us figure out who would win in 2016?
Yes, it helped us know that no third party candidate had any chance of winning. And it helped us know that both the R and D candidate had a reasonable chance of winning.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments