Notices by Louis Ingenthron (louisingenthron@qoto.org), page 2

@freemo Ah, but part of the premise is that you *have* to spend it all by the end of the election.

I didn't give an "or else" on that, but let's just say that if you don't spend it, you lose it all.

@freemo Votes are final.

Just had an idea for a thought experiment. I'd like to hear anyone's answers, but I'm especially interested in how @freemo answers:

Let's say the presidential election was framed as a stock market. The market itself (equivalent to NYSE or NASDAQ) is America. The stocks are the presidential candidates.

In this experiment, each American has a net worth of $1000 and they have to spend it "voting" for presidential stocks during the election year. They can vote early in the year, or wait and see how others invest and vote later. They can split the $1000 between as many candidates as they want, or put it all on one.

After the election happens, they receive 10% of what they invested in the winning candidate each month (so if they put it all on the winner, they're made whole in 10 months). After the election, the winner's stock becomes the premier stock of the entire market and drives the market valuation based on the President's performance, paying dividends to every American when it does well.

In this scenario, you have two (potentially) competing motivations: enriching yourself and enriching the market (America).

So, the two questions that arise are:
1) Do you invest early, based on just your morals/politics, or do you wait and see how others invest first?
2) How do you divide up your $1,000?

@freemo If the party is unlikely to win, but a win is *viable*, then I'd agree with you.

The key is not whether they have *any* chance, but a *viable* chance. A viable chance may be worth betting on. But a vote for a nonviable candidate is a waste, imo.

@freemo FWIW, my comments above apply *only* to electoral college votes.

When it comes to congressional seats or other downballot elections, a third party vote is *much* more viable and is not a throwaway.

@freemo Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that every time a party has ascended in such a fashion, it had already established its viability by establishing a number of wins in downballot elections, right (or it was just a reformation of a previously proven-viable party).

I don't think that any have come out of nowhere to win, like they'd have to this year.

>How can you reduce harm if your vote has absolutely no impact on the outcome of any kind? Cant reduce harm if your screaming into the wind doing nothing.

But it does have impact. My vote is one of many that determine where the electoral votes go. Therefore, voting against the greater harm is a moral imperative, and the most effective way to do so is to vote for the only other viable candidate.

@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo There's a difference between libertarianism with a small 'l' that stands for small government that works for everyone, and Libertarians with a big 'L' that are just far-right authoritarian stooges who took over the national party.

@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo Actually, it's pretty easy. Just ask if they believe in an age of consent. 😂

@freemo
> So? Its still the reality chance of it happening, 0 is not. Full stop.

In a vacuum, sure. But in the real world, we can look around and see that those external factors are not present this year.

> Isnt the point of voting to make a positive difference?

No, it's to reduce harm. And by throwing away your vote for an impossible candidate, you give up your opportunity to reduce harm.

@freemo That 3% is an average driven entirely by major outliers. The bottom line is, without the right combination of external conditions in place, the possibility of a third party finishing first in a FPTP system is effectively zero.

Primaries have different systems, but those that are FPTP do have the exact same dynamics I described above.

@freemo The significance of a vote for a candidate that cannot win is zero.

So, a vote for one of the main parties is, by definition, more significant, even if it's literally one in a hundred million.

@freemo Why even leave the house to vote then?

@peterdrake @freemo I thought the same thing at first, but I think that's usually the result of the author accidentally orphaning their reply. If you look that one up on the author's home server, it doesn't appear to be a reply to anything.

@freemo The correct term is, undoubtedly, "PENitent"

@freemo Same way as all the others, someone will sue the state. Probably within the next week or two.

@freemo No kidding.

Luckily it doesn't actually go into effect until 2025, and federal judges will almost certainly bitch slap it down before that happens.

Breaking: #Florida now requires its citizens to submit photo identification to foreign #pornography websites.

@freemo Well, you can never truly eliminate bias, but at least some do try to make an effort.

That said, there are also plenty of small local outlets that are just hollowed-out corporate shells, with a couple interns repeating whatever the AP is reporting on and what people are saying about it on Twitter. So, fuck those guys.

@freemo I would agree with that characterization for larger media companies.

But I think there are still smaller, independent enterprises that are better. I think the way forward could be small co-op journalism outlets that work together to stake a reputation of honesty and reliability.

@freemo Especially when their pages already want to load javascript from 70 external sources before you ever create an account.

The journalism industry isn't dying. It's being strangled to death by its jackass business-class owners.