• overeager@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I think it’s the opposite. In FPTP system the largest minority wins. If you vote against one candidate, it will (probably) create another minority. To make sure the candidate loses, the largest minority have to agree for another candidate just any candidate won’t do. Related cgp grey’s video - https://yewtu.be/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      That’s an early-stage FPTP system. After a bunch of people with minority support start winning you end up with two options, and you vote against the one you hate least because there’s not really a choice anymore.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          If I’m given the choice between chocolate and vanilla, choosing vanilla doesn’t make it my favorite. It’s just the least bad option because caramel isn’t available. I’m not for vanilla, I’m against chocolate.

          • overeager@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            isn’t that effectively wordplay? say, i like chocolate but vanilla more. then i choose vanilla but i’m not against chocolate. it doesn’t matter when two given choices.

            but that’s doesn’t account for non-late-stage FPTP. given more than two choices i’d have to vote for a candidate. voting against other candidate may not work because largest minority wins.