FPTP strongly weights towards a two-party system (where party means individual or group of individuals). The only real voting choices are to vote for a candidate or to vote against a candidate. Any other choice is wildly ineffective.
There are many other systems that are better representations of the will of the people, both at the political party level and at the candidate level, but the caveat is that the two main parties will almost never be able to exercise the amount of power they currently have again. This may appear to be a good thing to the citizenry, but not to the two main parties.
Of course not. Brackets signify that the words contained within may be an interesting aside, but unrelated to the topic at hand. I’m quite sure it was an interesting aside, but the topic at hand is interesting enough for me right now. I can always come back to read that aside in a few months if I am looking for a new topic.
We can quote other segments not left as asides if you want, though.
The only real voting choices are to vote for a candidate or to vote against a candidate.
Under FPTP the only voting choices are to vote for a candidate or to decline to vote. There is no option to vote against a candidate. Maybe there is some electoral system out there that provides that, but FPTP is not it.
Given your intentional obtuseness, this will be my last response.
FPTP means the only votes that matter are those for the candidate with the most votes. It also means that a majority isn’t required to win, particularly if there are more than two choices as we typically have in Canada. Therefore, the only two winning strategies are to get a simple majority or to get a plurality without sufficiently outraging those who oppose you to actively vote for the second-likeliest vote, reducing vote-splitting and upsetting the norms. Not voting, as you disingenuously suggest, merely increases the odds of the person you’re opposed to having win actually doing so. You can use whatever gradeschool-level language typically found in alternating caps to refute the point, or you could read just about anything written about the flaws of FPTP and see my exact scenario mentioned.
It also means that a majority isn’t required to win
Not true. The winner is always that who receives the most votes. Literally the majority.
Yes, I know those weirdo Americans might call that a plurality, but this is Canada. We speak Canadian English. You know, the one that includes a “u” in colour, refers to the letter Z as “zed” and not “zee”, and defines majority as “the number by which the votes for one party or candidate exceed those of the next in rank.”
plurality
Oh. Haha. There it is. Of what interest is Canada to an American anyway?
Therefore, the only two winning strategies
The only winning strategy is to get the most votes. There is no “I do not vote for that guy” option available to voters under FPTP. I don’t know what system you are envisioning which provides that, but FPTP is not it.
FPTP strongly weights towards a two-party system (where party means individual or group of individuals). The only real voting choices are to vote for a candidate or to vote against a candidate. Any other choice is wildly ineffective.
There are many other systems that are better representations of the will of the people, both at the political party level and at the candidate level, but the caveat is that the two main parties will almost never be able to exercise the amount of power they currently have again. This may appear to be a good thing to the citizenry, but not to the two main parties.
No. It makes absolutely no consideration for parties. It is not a party system. Period.
There are party systems. Many believe we would be better off with a party system. But FPTP is not one of them. It is a single representative system.
Didn’t read the bracketed text immediately after the quoted text, did you?
You’re wasting your breath with this one.
Of course not. Brackets signify that the words contained within may be an interesting aside, but unrelated to the topic at hand. I’m quite sure it was an interesting aside, but the topic at hand is interesting enough for me right now. I can always come back to read that aside in a few months if I am looking for a new topic.
We can quote other segments not left as asides if you want, though.
Under FPTP the only voting choices are to vote for a candidate or to decline to vote. There is no option to vote against a candidate. Maybe there is some electoral system out there that provides that, but FPTP is not it.
Given your intentional obtuseness, this will be my last response.
FPTP means the only votes that matter are those for the candidate with the most votes. It also means that a majority isn’t required to win, particularly if there are more than two choices as we typically have in Canada. Therefore, the only two winning strategies are to get a simple majority or to get a plurality without sufficiently outraging those who oppose you to actively vote for the second-likeliest vote, reducing vote-splitting and upsetting the norms. Not voting, as you disingenuously suggest, merely increases the odds of the person you’re opposed to having win actually doing so. You can use whatever gradeschool-level language typically found in alternating caps to refute the point, or you could read just about anything written about the flaws of FPTP and see my exact scenario mentioned.
Not true. The winner is always that who receives the most votes. Literally the majority.
Yes, I know those weirdo Americans might call that a plurality, but this is Canada. We speak Canadian English. You know, the one that includes a “u” in colour, refers to the letter Z as “zed” and not “zee”, and defines majority as “the number by which the votes for one party or candidate exceed those of the next in rank.”
Oh. Haha. There it is. Of what interest is Canada to an American anyway?
The only winning strategy is to get the most votes. There is no “I do not vote for that guy” option available to voters under FPTP. I don’t know what system you are envisioning which provides that, but FPTP is not it.