United States | News & Politics

The mathematics of First Past the Post elections drastically disincentivizes third parties, to the point of irrelevance. The winner will be one of the top two choices, so the only rational strategy (primarily in swing states, because of the fuckery that is the Electoral College) is voting against the worse of those two option.

Which is to say: when looking at third party options, would those voters be more likely to vote for the worst of the two main options, or the second worst of the two main options? Those are the only two candidates from which splitting votes is pragmatically relevant.

The evidence suggests to me that Orange Hitler is worse than Genocide Joe, since Orange Hitler would likely enable at least the same amount, if not more, Palestinian genocide; while also actively engaging in Ukrainian genocide; while also enabling Project 2025, which fundamentally threatens the thin veneer of democracy the US does have. I am not an accelerationist, I do not think that the probability of revolution it offers is high enough to counteract the probability of descending into fascism.

If you live in a deep red/blue state, then sure, vote third party so they get more visibility and funding, and encourage others in your state to do the same. But otherwise, vote for the second worst of the two main options, and don't encourage those in swing states to vote third party.