!leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com moderator @Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com removed my comment
or primariesa spoiler effect happens when a losing candidate affects the results of an election simply by participating
Vote splitting is the most common cause of spoiler effects in FPP. In these systems, the presence of many ideologically-similar candidates causes their vote total to be split between them, placing these candidates at a disadvantage. This is most visible in elections where a minor candidate draws votes away from a major candidate with similar politics, thereby causing a strong opponent of both to win.
This willful ignorance of the spoiler effect is tiresome denialism of mathematics. We’ve already seen the consequences.
reminding that primaries exist & quoting wikipedia’s explanation that in the US’s voting system, voting for minor candidates spoils the election in favor of the major party candidate the voter opposes most.
In context
the post is titled
Vote Blue No Matter Who
with my comment responding to the parent comment, which practically denies the point the higher comment is driving at that not “voting blue” can only spoil the election in favor of “the fascists”. Ignoring the purpose of primaries, the parent comment suggested alternatives that still don’t “vote Blue”.
According to the modlog entry
the moderator claims this violates rule
3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.
That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of “Marxist”-“Leninists” (read: Dengists) (actual ML’s are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don’t just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).
Somehow, straightforward social choice theory (a branch of mathematical social science) is “liberalism”, “revisionism”, or “reactionary”. Is “1 + 1 = 2” equally problematic?
Maybe moderators shouldn’t claim mathematics is ideology.
Is an explanation of how shit works an endorsement? See fallacy Confusing an Explanation with an Excuse.
Oh so you don’t actually endorse electoralist voting and we’re just clarifying things to assist in the the discussion?
Where was that said?
Even your phrasing here is strawman and an attempt to entrap.
Sophistry.
What? You should learn to read and comprehend better
Is the rule regarding the comment or their authors? I’m sure we can stick to the substance of the message presented on cause & effect without going on fishing expeditions into the irrelevant & unstated.
Moreover, your earlier claim is specious: liberalism is not by definition a voting system, and definitely not that particularly shitty voting system.
I think you’re engaging in sophistry while knowing perfectly well you were going against the spirit of the rules.
I don’t have patience for this. Goodbye
I think that’s you, honestly: you twist the definition of liberalism and claim the sophistry comes from the person you’re questioning. I’m not even sure what you’re arguing: apparently, it’s not leftist for people to have a voting system? Only liberals vote? Explaining the consequence of a particularly flawed voting system is intrinsically liberal somehow? Weird take.
Though you could have simply browsed the original comments to draw your own verdict as a moderator would & did, you instead raised one irrelevant question after another as a moderator wouldn’t until I quickly directed to evaluate shit like a moderator. Is that called sealioning? It’s pretty good.
That someone with your approach to evaluating rules moderates here is a disturbing reminder to those coming here to expect less from moderators in terms of objective, impartial judgement & control of biases. Everyone here should be somewhat disappointed to witness the sort of judgement displayed.
Did you know people can write & think different things? Or that their unrelated thoughts have no bearing on the logic of what they wrote? Wow! Logic: imagine that. Good job discrediting yourself, champ.
/disengage
You say that you oppose the shitty voting system while telling people to vote for the two same terrible parties which is accepting that terrible system instead of trying to change it
Nah mate, you’re the one engaging in sophistry.
Nowhere was there an endorsement for any system, merely an explanation of meanings.
Unless you can quote exactly what was said that endorses a system and isn’t an explanation of how things work.
But you won’t, because you’re not interested discovering truth but in winning an argument, “being right”; aka sophistry.
Voting for the less of two evil and the rhetoric of vote splitting is the product of the system you admitted is bad.
edit: You are acting like third-party voters have the same values as the Democrats, which is not the case. They don’t have the same values as the Republicans either. Even when two parties have the same end goal, it still makes sense to vote for one or the other.
Where I live, in the Quebec province of Canada, we have the Parti Québécois and Québec solidaire. Both want separation and protecting the culture. The issue is that the Parti Québécois’ method is an extremist one. The leader uses the word “woke” as a negative term just like Trump. He supports discriminatory laws to protect the culture, and his vision of culture is very conservative, a culture that can never change. Québec solidaire does not support those terrible laws and has an inclusive vision of culture.
The Parti Québécois leader complains about immigrants and believes it contributes to violence, and believes in the rhetoric of immigrants stealing our jobs. He even believes in the theory of initiative du siècle, which is like the Great Replacement, except that it is not about religion, and instead of the imaginary threat being the replacement of white identity, it is about the identity of the descendants of settlers.