@JorisMeys@mstdn.social
@pjw@social.coop @carl@chaos.social @benroyce@mastodon.social @screwturn@mastodon.social @mmalc@mastodon.social @HamonWry@mastodon.world @Strandjunker@mstdn.social the opinion you reference is about people who did vote. There's a whole separate argument to be made about the sense and nonsense of voting for minor parties, but it is fundamentally different to non-voting.
It might be an oversight, but if you then whine about ppl not reading it, you at least give the impression of posting in bad faith.
@mmalc@mastodon.social
@JorisMeys@mstdn.social @pjw@social.coop @carl@chaos.social @benroyce@mastodon.social @screwturn@mastodon.social @HamonWry@mastodon.world @Strandjunker@mstdn.social
Beyond that, seem to be number of issues to separate theoretical from practical:
Paper itself acknowledges that if the βidea of a [Manifest Normative Mandate] dictating whether a real world politician will act as a delegate or a trustee is naiveβ [β¦] then the arguments that follow may rely on a problematic assumptionβ
Given readiness of candidates to go against likely wishes of their electors, I think this is a problem