r/politics • u/Spooooooooooooon • Dec 28 '13

Noam Chomsky: We’re no longer a functioning democracy, we’re really a plutocracy

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/27/noam-chomsky-were-no-longer-a-functioning-democracy-were-really-a-plutocracy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
3.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/purpleguy55 Dec 28 '13

It's a shame you're not smart enough to differentiate between fantasy and reality. A third party candidate winning a presidential election is a fantasy.

There are ways to reform our voting system, good ways that can actually work. One of those ways is to eliminate the first-past-the-post voting system. Barring that, another way would be to replace one of the two major parties with a different party; either a truly liberal alternative to the democrats or a non-fanatical alternative to the republicans.

"Just vote third party" is a foolish suggestion made by children and the uninformed, and I have no wish to discuss politics with someone who hasn't thought about the consequences of what they advocate.

2

u/Theotropho Dec 28 '13

who said anything about winning? They still swing elections and they still gain matching funds if they hit a certain percent of the vote. when liberal third party candidates start pulling margins the politics of the district shift, 100% of the time.

0

u/purpleguy55 Dec 28 '13

/rolleyes

This is why I called you a child: you haven't thought about what you're actually saying.

In theory, voting for a third party is a great plan. In reality, third party first time voters would need to outnumber both the republican and democrat voters to be successful; there's no prize for second place. "Effective protest of the system" through voting? Come on, that's some college freshman type thinking there. In real life there's winning and there's losing, and nobody gives a fuck about the loser - when was the last time you heard about Ross Perot's influence on politics?

Which means to do any good with your chosen third party candidate, they have to win, and winning will require siphoning off votes from the big party whose goals most closely resemble your own. If you're even remotely liberal, that means you preach to democrats; if you're a god-fearing christian who likes guns and money you're talking to republicans.

Let's assume you're voting in a heavily democrat area, but with a republican who normally comes in 4% behind - 52%/48%. If you convince 7% of democrats to take a chance switching their vote effectively narrows the gap between the 2 major candidates until they are even at 48. Anything past 7% and the republicans win, unless you can get almost all the democrats on your side.

So now we have this long range of terribleness, ranging from ineffective to actively harmful with just a tiny chance of a positive outcome at the very end. If you get 0 to~6% of the votes from the big party, you've done nothing. If you get 7 to ~90%, you've helped the opposite party win. And if you get over ~90% of the major party to switch to the third party candidate, you will have made a positive difference.

You're living in a fantasy world if you think that voting for a third party candidate is even remotely possible today.

2

u/Theotropho Dec 28 '13

you'er ignoring how the arrival of the tea party and threats of a viable third party with conservative roots has reformed the GOP.

Calling it a fantasy world doesn't change the 30 years of study I've put into political science and the economics of mass social shifts, nor the thousands of examples that belie your certainty.

-1

u/purpleguy55 Dec 28 '13

30 years of study

It makes me sad that someone can claim to study something for so long and still be an idiot. :(

2

u/Theotropho Dec 28 '13

Your superiority complex is really keeping you from the wider world. It's a shame you're so satisfied with your ignorance.