It is kind of amazing how even those disenfranchised voters will rally to support the hegemony of the “two party” corporatist rule. I suggested recently we could consider rallying behind a single issue 3rd party candidate who would end the legalized bribes and replace FPTP with a more democratic alternative, and was immediately downvoted and told it’s not possible due to FPTP.

facepalm

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

In order for a 3rd option to be viable, the entire system must change. I'm not holding my breath.

Between now and then, all we can do is vote for the less bad of two evils.

[–] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It is theoreticaly possible, but praticaly speaking it would be near impossible.

To acomplish this, you need to get 51% of the population (who actually vote) to all vote for one person. However, with FPTP, you get one choice on the ballot. Is the average voter going to risk their vote on a 3rd party, or vote for who they belive to be the "lesser evil" of the two that have a shot at winning?

Even if you do manage to get 51%, there's the electoral collage. Never forget, our democracy has built in the ability to overwrite the presidential vote.

Your first hurdle is getting any one to name an independent candidate.

Edit: adjusted some wording to be better.