You're viewing part of a thread.
That’s not how votes work. And I’m not going to explain it to you because EVERONE here already has. You have absolutely no intention to argue in good faith at this point.
In FPTP, any vote not for one, is an assist for the other. Period. End of story. Case closed. No more debate on it.
That you’re here to continue arguing with people illustrates that you’re not here to discuss it in good faith at all.
Therefore, I’d ask anyone reading along to just disregard this person as a bad faith actor and don’t engage with them any further on this.
So if I don't vote for Kamala, I'm voting for Trump. But hold on - by not voting for Trump, that's also a vote for Kamala! But I'm also voting for the person I actually voted for. Am I casting votes for three different candidates?
The way votes work is that they tally up all the people who actually voted for a candidate, and that number is higher than the people who actually voted for any particular other candidate, then that candidate wins. Third party votes do not get added to either candidate's vote total. So not voting for one is not an assist for the other. Period. End of story. Case Closed. No more debate about it.
by not voting for a candidate that can win, your vote is entirely thrown away, it could've been used on someone who had a chance, but was wasted, therefore it benefitted the party you least support
vote strategically, or why bother?
Yeah… they have no intention to discuss anything in good faith whatsoever. You’re spot on with the logic, but they’re not going to even address it. Instead- they’ll just dump an unasked-for ethics lesson on you because it makes them feel smart and superior to everyone.
Check their comment history. They’re like a wannabe Chidi from The Good Place, only he isn’t even a real person, and their interpretation of him is WAY off.
Ok, so now it's thrown away as opposed to being a vote for Trump.
There are several good reasons why voting third party is better than not voting. First, it is a self-fulfilling prophesy to say that a third party can't win, and that assumption is based on previous vote totals in previous elections, so the total in this election will affect conventional wisdom in future elections. Second, there are thresholds where even if a party doesn't win, they could be eligible for things like public election funding. Third, voting third party as opposed to not voting promotes political engagement, and can publicize organizations like PSL that are involved in things outside of elections. Fourth, voting third party tells politicians where you're politically aligned, and opens the door for the party to bargain with a major party and potentially being able to offer an endorsement in exchange for concessions.
it's both
it's a vote thrown away, which benefits trump, if you'd be a kamala supporter
this is so not complicated the mental gymnastics on display could go to the olympics
as for your points
- It's mathematically impossible for a third party candidate to win, no amount of throwing away your vote will change the mathmatical certainty, this shows you did not understand the video you responded to
- congrats, you have funded a party that can with absolute certainty accomplish nothing, woop de do.
- Voting always does that
- At the cost of benefitting the party you like the least... there's so many ways to do that that are risk free but instead you risk trump for god knows what reason
I wouldn't be a Kamala supporter, so it doesn't benefit Trump. Glad we got that resolved.
It’s mathematically impossible for a third party candidate to win
Objectively false. If a third party candidate got the most votes, then they would win, so it is mathematically possible. I understand the video perfectly.
congrats, you have funded a party that can with absolute certainty accomplish nothing, woop de do.
Even if they accomplished nothing, I'd still rather my money go to them than to the government or either major party, all of which I oppose.
Voting always does that
Sorry, you asked "why vote at all if you're not going to vote strategically," so that's the question I was answering.
At the cost of benefitting the party you like the least
I'm not benefitting the party I like the least, I am only benefiting the party I vote for.
If you made a list of your top choices for president, from 1-whatever, would kamala be higher than trump, or lower?
Higher.
Then you would indeed be a kamala supporter and you are indeed negatively impacting your better choice with this
Wrong. I wouldn't support Kamala regardless of her being the lesser evil. I would abstain, because neither of them are at all acceptable to me.
Your logic doesn't make sense. We only get one or the other of them, that is the inevitable outcome of the election. It is going to be either Trump or Harris. You just said Trump is worse than Harris in a previous comment. If you legitimately believe Trump is worse then it is basic harm reduction to vote for the person who is capable of defeating him. Choosing to not vote or to vote third party reduces the chances of Harris winning and increases the chances of Trump winning. Either you actually do want Trump to win and are trolling or your ethics and values are incoherent.
In think you hit the nail on the head for me with this one:
I wouldn't be a Kamala supporter, so it doesn't benefit Trump
I'm in the same boat. Many of Kamala's policies aren't things I want or agree with. Many of Trump's policies aren't things I want or agree with. I disagree with BOTH of the major candidates so much that it doesn't make sense for me to vote for either of them.
They aren't losing my vote, their platforms are such that neither ever had my vote to begin with. It's not like my vote would have been for Kamala, but since I have a small issue with one of her planks, then I'm throwing a fit and I'm going to vote 3rd party.
Neither major candidate deserves my vote, In fact I think the difference between Kamala and Trump winning is relatively small for the US. Either of them winning will be a nightmare for the US. They're both terrible people, they may lie about different things, and the media favors one or the other more for their own benefit. They're both authoritarian warmongers, who say whatever it takes on the campaign trail to get elected, then stomp all over regular people when they get into power. The major parties are not the same, but they're both fucked.
I also happen to live in a state where one party will get double the other party's votes, and it's been that way for nearly my entire life. MY VOTE FOR PRESIDENT LITERALLY DOESN'T MATTER HERE, EVEN IF I LIKED ONE OF THE MAJOR CANDIDATES.
If other people like Kamala more than Trump, enough to cast their vote for her, then I encourage them to do so. I understand in swing states where individual votes aren't annihilated by a supermajority that people may have to be more strategic in their voting and take the bad with the good.
But personally, I vote for a 3rd party candidate with no chance to win, whose platform I happen to agree with more than any other candidate, and I can live with myself and the eventual outcome.
I definitely agree on getting out of first past the post though.
or why bother?
Why are you encouraging people not to vote?
I'm not, I'm encouraging them to vote strategically
Reading this thread is painful…
You say you know exactly how it works. Are you aware that the only possibilities for president are the Dem or Rep nominee? Your comments make it seem like you don’t know that.
Yes, I'm aware that those are the only realistic winners of this election. I'm not aware of anything I might have said that would imply I think otherwise.
Then I have to think you believe Trump and Harris would be equally bad and therefore don’t feel compelled to vote strategically against either.
Do I have that right?
No. They are not equally bad, but neither is an acceptable choice.
You’re pretty sanguine about getting the worse of the two. I find that strange.
I don't subscribe to the ideology of lesser-evilism.
Explain the logic of “I’m good with the greater evil, actually”.
Sure. Ethically speaking, anyone who's not an act utilitarian will accept the "greater evil" in some circumstances, and if you don't, it leads to some absurd conclusions, like chopping up a healthy person to get organ transplants to save five. Another example would be, "If you don't kill someone for me, I'll kill two people." I can't prevent every bad thing from happening, but I can control my own actions and choose not to be a party to bad things.
Got it. Voting, in your mind, is akin to two different examples of murder.
It sounds to me like you’d opt out of giving someone the Heimlich maneuver so as not to bruise their abdomen, letting them choke to death.
I can control my own actions and choose not to be a party to bad things
You can pretend to opt out but not voting or voting third is a choice not to help prevent the worse outcome. You’ve participated in bringing that to fruition.
This response says you subscribe to the ideology of worse-evilism for everybody else.
As a member of everybody else, THAAAAAANKS.
Nope, not supporting the worse evil either.
Lesser-evilism freqently produces worse results than more coherent strategies and ethical systems.
So I’ll use a random what-if/analogy since you seem to love them SO much!
Imagine a magic elf came down from magic elf land, and made you chose between having an acute health condition and cancer. Do you mean to say that you are totally fine with allowing other people to decide for you- full-well knowing that half of the people deciding are huge fans of cancer and not at all fans of you?
Because this is your logic mirrored right back back at you.
Or would you actually give a shit in this case because it will be YOU that’s affected by the outcome.
Either way-
You’re getting one regardless. Not choosing doesn’t make the election not happen. But you know this. Don’t you?
choose between having an acute health condition and cancer
The ironic part is you just might be better off with the cancer. An acute problem could be anything, from broken bones or an infection to a heart attack or acute radiation poisoning. At least with cancer you know what you're going to get and should have time to seek treatment.
The common cold is also an acute condition. So maybe if you try reeeeeeaaaaally hard, you’ll actually get the point I’m making here and why I used that as an example.
Best of luck!
Could have said something specific then, rather than "literally anything acute". As it is, I don't know why you'd assume your magical elf that's known to cause cancer could also be so benign as to only give people a cold.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_United_States_presidential_election
Here. This is how your system actually works. Not how you believe it to work. Wilson won with less than 42% of the votes because a third party managed to be popular enough to split the votes and stole enough votes from Taft. This is what would happen if people actually listened to you. Thank fuck they don't.
Those votes did not belong to Taft in the first place, so they were not "stolen." They belonged to the voters, who can give them to whoever they choose. As a matter of fact, Taft got fewer votes than Roosevelt, so if anything it would be more correct to say that Taft is the one that "stole" votes from him.
Of course, it is impossible to say what would've happened if it were just between two candidates, there is no way to know that every Roosevelt voter would vote Taft or that every Taft voter would vote Roosevelt.
Uuuh, splitting hairs on my choice of words. The republican party split into two and so did the votes. The fact that I said "stole" wasn't part of the point. And ofc you're gonna say it's impossible to know..
It's just a coincidence that in 1908 it was 6.4m vs 7.7m votes (dems and republicans respectively) and in 1912 it was 6.3m vs 3.5m + 4.1m (Dems vs republicans and progressives respectively)
Yeah, the numbers stayed more or less the same except the republican vote got split. But yeah, that's just a coincidence, we have no way of knowing!
splitting hairs on my choice of words
If I don't keep y'all honest on terminology, you'll say all kinds of ridiculous nonsense to make my side look bad, whether it's "stealing votes" or "helping the other side."
It’s just a coincidence that in 1908 it was 6.4m vs 7.7m votes (dems and republicans respectively) and in 1912 it was 6.3m vs 3.5m + 4.1m (Dems vs republicans and progressives respectively)
And in 1916, when there were only two major candidates, it was 9.1m democrat vs 8.5m republican.
Exactly, thank you! People went back to voting republican again since there was no Roosevelt to split the vote! Now you're getting it!
And lost. Because the electorate was shifting between 1908 and 1916, so there's no reason to think that the results of 1912 would've been the same as 1908.
You're wrong.
No, you're wrong.
Replying to me was more debate. So, as I said, you were wrong.
OK, you're right about this specific thing, but I'm right about every other thing no debate no takebacks times infinity. That's how it works, right?
I can’t be baited bud. That’s not how it works. I have the strength of conviction to say something and stick with it. So I won’t be indulging you by answering your bad faith bullshit.
Not happening.
I’m just here to walk you into the light so people can see what you’re up to and maybe stop taking you so seriously.
Nothing more.
But please, by all means. Continue with your smug little ethics lesson. Im enjoying it!