Thanks for your input, but it is not a question about who benefits or what a person aught to do, but a simple logical conclusion:

For simplicities’ sake, let’s say there are 10 people voting in an election with 2 parties. Each party has 4 unwavering loyalists and the remaining 2 people’s votes depend on current events/issues. The two parties mainly take turns in government due to these swing voters.

Now enter a third party. Party 3 addresses issues that are somewhat relevant to voters of party 2 and mostly uninteresting to voters of party 1. In the next election, some voters will most likely drift from party 2 to party 3:

• Party 1: 5 Votes
• Party 2: 3 Votes
• Party 3: 2 Votes

Splitting votes between too somewhat similar parties guarantees a win for the opposite party on the spectrum. Coalitions are not possible under first past the post, so party 2 and 3 teaming up to dethrone party 1 is not an option. This continues until either another party on the opposite end of the spectrum joins the race and diminishes the votes for party 1 or one of party 2 or 3 absorbs the other.

Therefore, it is in the voter’s best interest to vote strategically against what they don’t want and not for what they do want.

The issue in the US is that it IS against your political interests to vote for anyone but the least bad option.

The first past the post system simply doesn’t allow for a diverse political landscape.

OK, let’s trade then. Mine are often cold despite the blanket/bed sheet.

Who puts a blanket on their legs but not their feet? Also, wearing slippers on the couch? If your feet are cold, put them under your blanket and get those dirty soles off the furniture!

Kids these days …

SPRICH