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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
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.