Oh fantastic! So they are capable of getting enough votes to overcome the two party duopoly created by our first past the post voting system? Wow, that’s amazing! Why have I never heard of them?!
candidates dont take votes, voters give votes. any candidate is capable of receiving enough votes to win, it’s up to voters to decide. If you want to get rid of that first past the post voting system, well guess what. That same anti-genocide party also supports ranked choice voting! So if you’re anti-genocide and dont like first past the post voting, why would you decide on the total opposite of that?
viable /vī′ə-bəl/
adjective
Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable:
synonym: possible.
Right, theyre capable of being elected if people vote for them. Same as any party.
Oh fantastic! So they are capable of getting enough votes to overcome the two party duopoly created by our first past the post voting system? Wow, that’s amazing! Why have I never heard of them?!
candidates dont take votes, voters give votes. any candidate is capable of receiving enough votes to win, it’s up to voters to decide. If you want to get rid of that first past the post voting system, well guess what. That same anti-genocide party also supports ranked choice voting! So if you’re anti-genocide and dont like first past the post voting, why would you decide on the total opposite of that?
Sadly, “voters give votes” isn’t a strategy to actually break the duopoly in America… Looks like I got my hopes up for nothing…
What hopes? What do you hope happens?
Well… Not to restate the obvious, but I hoped you had discovered a viable anti genocide third party that could overcome the duopoly.
Again, viability is entirely up to you the voter.