So we ought to be thankful we're not in NK. Got it. Glad your bar is so high. It's apparent that you're decided but other folks will read this so let's break it down barney style.
The 'third parties' argument is a painful joke, statistically speaking [0 1 2]. You can make all sorts of arguments as to why but the fact is that without support from D or R you can go get fucked.
This raises the question - are there only two opinions? With the obvious answer - of course not. We could say 'well, maybe people fall generally into two camps', but that doesn't really pass muster either, does it? I have friends on both sides of the aisle and I agree with all of them on some things. This is evidenced by the amount of voters registered third party despite the abysmal election numbers [3].
So what's going on here? Well, people are being strategic. We're on first-past-the-post in most places. This means you're typically voting not for what you want but for what you don't want. That is not a system of representation, it's a sports game where the prize is some cosmetic social program changes and not much else.
Mamdani is an excellent example of what this system does to third party candidates. As soon as there's a legitimate threat to the entrenched parties, fundraising spikes massively for the opposition [4].
Not getting a vote under this system wouldn't be more totalitarian, it would be more honest.
Fundraising doesn't win elections except in extremely low information elections... which is just a shortcoming of the electorate. It's statistically probable that more popular candidates raise more money. If money won elections, Hillary Clinton would have won twice.
I was sort of with you until Mamdani. He ran as a Democrat, in the Democratic primary. Cuomo outraised him by huge margins. NYC has ranked choice voting. Seems like things worked?
The 'third parties' argument is a painful joke, statistically speaking [0 1 2]. You can make all sorts of arguments as to why but the fact is that without support from D or R you can go get fucked.
This raises the question - are there only two opinions? With the obvious answer - of course not. We could say 'well, maybe people fall generally into two camps', but that doesn't really pass muster either, does it? I have friends on both sides of the aisle and I agree with all of them on some things. This is evidenced by the amount of voters registered third party despite the abysmal election numbers [3].
So what's going on here? Well, people are being strategic. We're on first-past-the-post in most places. This means you're typically voting not for what you want but for what you don't want. That is not a system of representation, it's a sports game where the prize is some cosmetic social program changes and not much else.
Mamdani is an excellent example of what this system does to third party candidates. As soon as there's a legitimate threat to the entrenched parties, fundraising spikes massively for the opposition [4].
Not getting a vote under this system wouldn't be more totalitarian, it would be more honest.
0 -https://pressgallery.house.gov/member-data/party-breakdown
1 - https://www.senate.gov/senators/SenatorsRepresentingThirdorM...
2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_and_independent_me...
3 - https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-voters-have-a-party-a...
4 - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/16/nyregion/mamdani-adams-do...