Roof_Roach

In the US third parties are more or less legally prevented from winning due to all sorts of legal codification of the parties in state election laws. For an election to take place in Ohio (as an example) without Dems or Reps existing would necessitate rewritten election policy. ”Anti-corruption measures” necessitate a registered democrat and a registered republican are together with the ballots at all times. So it’s not this simple by any stretch of the imagination. Dems and reps have legal power other organizations do not. They use this (beyond the simple inertia they maintain) to ensure they hold power. I cant speak on parliamentary systems so if it was intended to apply to that, fair enough. Voting third party in the US (at best) indicates to the closest ideologically aligned major party which way they need to move their policy to capture the fringes.

EDIT: another comment I read mentioned that a third party reaching a certain percentage would open funding and while I’m not positive on how that all works makes sense to me. So while I’m probably being a bit overly dismissive of third party voting I think my point still stands for the most part.

PS this reality evidences the necessity of revolution not continuing to ‘vote blue no matter who’

Everyone thinks they know better and investor money has to go somewhere for taxation purposes.

As an aside, S&P500 index is the only investment worth making for USAmericans who aren’t in congress.

Maybe send an email then. Uploading any personal content to a public server has always been frowned upon at places I’ve worked so it’s not crazy to contact the guy—especially if your job is in anyway related to network security or other IT type work.

Consider if it’s worth having these conversations in the first place. Realize the best you can accomplish is to razz your conservative relatives a bit. If you think they can take it without it becoming a significant issue, the communist manifesto has brought more people around to socialism than anything else so start there. Don’t cite anything specific as that’ll just cause them to shutoff completely in most cases, play the rhetorical game foremost. If they act like they’re already super familiar with Marxism, ask them about their thoughts on historical materialism or maybe the tendency of the rate of profit to fall in capitalist economies—asking about specific core Marxist concepts is rhetorically useful since it’s impossible to learn about Marx and not have encountered these phrases, making it a good way to reveal their actual knowledge. Don’t take the debates too seriously and if people start to lose their cool consider just letting it go.

What’re you hoping to accomplish? I can’t imagine the guy reacting well to randomly being confronted by a stranger.

Popper’s (non-Marxist) disciple Paul Feyerabend pretty well undermined Popper’s view, essentially showing that many interesting and foundational scientific discoveries could not have been made if we exclusively followed the mode of what Popper calls science.