• Garbanzo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      4 months ago

      They won’t. But as a voter in California my third party vote is extremely unlikely to throw it either way, so I can safely help them try to get over 5% of the popular vote to qualify for money from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. That will allow for more diverse voices to be heard in the next cycle, which I see as a benefit even if they’re unlikely to win anything in my lifetime.

      • cinabongo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I’m not American, but I agree with you, it’s can’t all be about defeating the candidate I hate most. If the two main candidates are terrible, why not go for a third? Even if my pick doesn’t win, maybe if enough people think the same, you could have a more diverse pool of candidates further down the line. What’s the worst that could happen? It’s not like Trump will end the country in four years right? right?

        Imagine if headlines were “the two main options are terrible, what other options do we have” instead of, “they’re both terrible but you have to stop the guy you hate the most at any cost”. Feels like a way to limit the candidate pool to two options.

      • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        Do you truly honestly think no one’s going to pocket that money and beg for more next cycle? You are coping hard.