Your entire explanation is predicated on the belief that the Warm Pepsi party doesn’t prefer watching everyone get their faces smashed in by hammers to working with the Cool Water party in any capacity.
No, it’s predicated on the belief that Warm Pepsi is still preferable to Hammers and that attempting to supplant either of them with Cool Water in one fell swoop isn’t realistic. Under those premises, Cool Water may act as a spoiler party to undermine Warm Pepsi.
Nobody wins by voting third party in a plurality system, unless that third party can overtake one of the two first parties.
That’s not what I was asking. Would Cool Water prefer Warm Pepsi or Hammers to have the plurality?
Because the whole point of my explanation of the Spoiler Effect is this: If the Cool Water party wins over more Warm Pepsi voters than Hammer voters (which it probably would), it may end up splitting the Pepsi vote to the point that the Hammers win.
Unless you can be sure that Cool Water would take the plurality, you’d risk smashing your own face to spite Pepsi.
By all means, do the work to make Cool Water popular and gain support, but don’t ignore the reality of strategic voting. It’s fucked up, it’s ideologically unpalatable, but it’s pragmatic.
That’s not what I was asking. Would Cool Water prefer Warm Pepsi or Hammers to have the plurality?
This is just “drink your warm pepsi or you get the hammer” phrased as a question.
Because the whole point of my explanation
The only point of your condescending centrist-splaining is to gloat that your shitty wing of the party is taking advantage of a situation in which the only alternative to their constant betrayal is worse than they are.
Your entire explanation is predicated on the belief that the Warm Pepsi party doesn’t prefer watching everyone get their faces smashed in by hammers to working with the Cool Water party in any capacity.
This is not the case.
No, it’s predicated on the belief that Warm Pepsi is still preferable to Hammers and that attempting to supplant either of them with Cool Water in one fell swoop isn’t realistic. Under those premises, Cool Water may act as a spoiler party to undermine Warm Pepsi.
Nobody wins by voting third party in a plurality system, unless that third party can overtake one of the two first parties.
So as far as warm pepsi is concerned, cool water is a greater enemy than hammers.
Which is what we’re seeing now.
And as far as Cool Water is concerned?
As far as cool water is concerned, people are being forced to drink warm pepsi under threat of being murdered with hammers.
That’s not what I was asking. Would Cool Water prefer Warm Pepsi or Hammers to have the plurality?
Because the whole point of my explanation of the Spoiler Effect is this: If the Cool Water party wins over more Warm Pepsi voters than Hammer voters (which it probably would), it may end up splitting the Pepsi vote to the point that the Hammers win.
Unless you can be sure that Cool Water would take the plurality, you’d risk smashing your own face to spite Pepsi.
By all means, do the work to make Cool Water popular and gain support, but don’t ignore the reality of strategic voting. It’s fucked up, it’s ideologically unpalatable, but it’s pragmatic.
This is just “drink your warm pepsi or you get the hammer” phrased as a question.
The only point of your condescending centrist-splaining is to gloat that your shitty wing of the party is taking advantage of a situation in which the only alternative to their constant betrayal is worse than they are.