• 13 Posts
  • 761 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2024

help-circle





  • I am all in favour for handing Ukraine the tools they need to win this war. But at the same time “the others are doing it” is no justification for a free pass on every weapon or tactic.

    The Russians butchered civilians, destroyed critical civilian infrastructure and yet I’d rather prefer the Ukrainians to not do the same.

    Also anti personal mines and cluster munitions from i.e. the Vietnam war are still causing crippling and death today. Using weapons that are prone to cause damage to future generations for short term gains is in my opinion short sighted. We should provide Ukraine with more “sensible” weapons in quantities that makes using cluster munitions and mines obsolete.










  • einkorntoComic Strips@lemmy.worldReckless
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Thanks for your input, but it is not a question about who benefits or what a person aught to do, but a simple logical conclusion:

    For simplicities’ sake, let’s say there are 10 people voting in an election with 2 parties. Each party has 4 unwavering loyalists and the remaining 2 people’s votes depend on current events/issues. The two parties mainly take turns in government due to these swing voters.

    Now enter a third party. Party 3 addresses issues that are somewhat relevant to voters of party 2 and mostly uninteresting to voters of party 1. In the next election, some voters will most likely drift from party 2 to party 3:

    • Party 1: 5 Votes
    • Party 2: 3 Votes
    • Party 3: 2 Votes

    Splitting votes between too somewhat similar parties guarantees a win for the opposite party on the spectrum. Coalitions are not possible under first past the post, so party 2 and 3 teaming up to dethrone party 1 is not an option. This continues until either another party on the opposite end of the spectrum joins the race and diminishes the votes for party 1 or one of party 2 or 3 absorbs the other.

    Therefore, it is in the voter’s best interest to vote strategically against what they don’t want and not for what they do want.




  • einkorntoComic Strips@lemmy.worldReckless
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    3 days ago

    The issue in the US is that it IS against your political interests to vote for anyone but the least bad option.

    The first past the post system simply doesn’t allow for a diverse political landscape.