Sure, but only fourth grade logic is required to see why that’s wrong.

Trump: 50,000,000 votes

Kamala: 50,000,000 votes

Other candidates: 1,000 votes + 3,000 votes + 7,000 votes + …

When an primitive voting scheme is used that says “winner takes all and you can only vote for one candidate,” a vote for any other candidate is essentially the same as not voting unless the masses gather behind a single third party (which will never happen, especially with the internet).

A voting scheme more sophisticated that allows people to pick multiple candidates, in something like a ranked list for example, would make third party votes worth something. But that disrupts the status quo and doesn’t help career politicians, so we’ll never see that unless heads start rolling.

Thanks for the reminder that English is dumb