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.
-
or why bother?
Why are you encouraging people not to vote?
-
I'm not, I'm encouraging them to vote strategically
-
-
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.
-
-
-
-
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.
-
It's because Objection here is a full on ml cult member. They use moronic statements like calling people NSA spies, everyone they don't like is a lib, they're trans of course so that's their defense when cornered, Ukraine started the war, etc etc. Their comment history is a who's who of all the classic cliches.
It's not worth your time talking to them. They're just trolling for 20 comment deep arguments.
-
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.
-
I love that your entire reasoning is "I know I'm wrong, and i know everyone I've ever talked to has told me I'm wrong... but I'm still going to do it anyways".
Smart choice, kid.
-
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.
-
-
-
-
-
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.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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!
-
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.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I think there is a point that gets left out in this back and forth a lot. So because of the way our system is, only two parties currently have a real world chance at winning. And yes voting for one is not a vote for the other. Likewise voting 3rd party is not voting for the other. In any literal sense this is true.
The argument that's trying to be made but is being done poorly imo, is that if you aren't helping to stop a party from winning by voting against them (and for the only other party capable of winning) then you are actively hurting the chances of said party being defeated. So in this case, not voting for harris, who is the only candidate opposing trump with a real world chance of winning, means that you are helping trump to win, because it's one less vote to the party capable of beating him.
When they say you voting 3rd party is a vote for trump, it's not literal. It's the effective end though. If not enough people vote harris, trump wins. They are talking about the argument from a single perspective, of defeating trump. You can make the argument from the other perspective of trump defeating harris too, that not voting trump helps harris. And both statements are true. If you don't help a cause, you hurt it. And the same goes for 3rd parties. If you don't help them, you hurt them.
Let's take our current race as an example. If I had ranked choice I'd vote 3rd party, then harris, then a 4th party then at the very bottom trump. Since we have FPTP though this really just becomes my order of preference.
In our FPTP system without ranked choice voting, when it comes to a federal presidential election, if you aren't voting for a party that can actually win (even if they aren't your first choice), then you are increasing the chances for their competition. In our case the 3rd and 4th party are incapable of producing a win, no matter how badly we may want it. So if I want my vote to make a difference that helps push things towards my preferences, then I have to remove those two from my consideration. I could vote for them. But by doing so my alternative preference of harris doesn't get a vote. Fewer votes for my alternative preference means that my lowest preference of trump stands a better chance of winning because there is now less opposition from the preference with a chance to win.
Any and all parties want you to vote for them. But their next preference is that you not vote, or at least vote in a way that doesn't support their strongest competition.
If it were green against democrats as the top two in an election, and you are cheering on green. Would you prefer someone (Joe) that doesn't want to vote green, instead vote democrat, a 3rd party with no chance at winning, or not at all? I can't say what you'd choose in actuality, but in most cases, others in the same position wouldn't care one bit if Joe voted 3rd party or not at all, because at least he didn't help the democrats.
Sorry, a bit rambly and this is from my phone so probably littered with grammar issues. But that's my general point of view on it. Most people view it as if someone isn't helping, they are hurting. Thanks for coming to my ted talk lol
-
In any literal sense this is true.
It is very much false, in any literal sense. When they count up the votes, they do not add third party votes to the other side. The argument you're actually trying to make (or should be trying to make, at least) is that, despite being false in a literal sense, it is true in a metaphorical or in a practical sense. Otherwise, you are just objectively wrong.
The argument that’s trying to be made but is being done poorly imo, is that if you aren’t helping to stop a party from winning by voting against them (and for the only other party capable of winning) then you are actively hurting the chances of said party being defeated. So in this case, not voting for harris, who is the only candidate opposing trump with a real world chance of winning, means that you are helping trump to win, because it’s one less vote to the party capable of beating him.
No, I'm not "hurting" Harris' chances. I'm just not helping them. I am not taking a vote away from Harris, if you wipe me away from existence, Harris doesn't have "one less vote" than she would have otherwise, she has the exact same number. So this is also wrong.
When they say you voting 3rd party is a vote for trump, it’s not literal.
You just said it was literal.
If you don’t help a cause, you hurt it. And the same goes for 3rd parties. If you don’t help them, you hurt them.
Categorically false. If someone on the other side of the world murders someone, and I did nothing to help the victim, did I hurt them? No, I just didn't help them. The baseline or zero-point is non-involvement.
In our FPTP system without ranked choice voting, when it comes to a federal presidential election, if you aren’t voting for a party that can actually win (even if they aren’t your first choice), then you are increasing the chances for their competition
Again, false. I'm not increasing the chances for their competition, I'm just not decreasing their chances.
Most people view it as if someone isn’t helping, they are hurting.
I have no idea if "most people" view it that way or not, but regardless, it's not how I view it and I don't think it's a reasonable way to view it.
-
I think you might have misunderstood me. Like a lot. In the hopes you are intending to have an honest conversation I'll try to address the misunderstandings.
In response to my first statement you stated
It is very much false, in any literal sense. When they count up the votes, they do not add third party votes to the other side.
If you had read me correctly I said
And yes voting for one is not a vote for the other. Likewise voting 3rd party is not voting for the other. In any literal sense this is true.
Which is completely in agreeance with your position on the matter. If I'm incorrect on this, then you are as well because we have the same opinion on this. :)
on to the next bit
No, I’m not “hurting” Harris’ chances. I’m just not helping them. I am not taking a vote away from Harris, if you wipe me away from existence, Harris doesn’t have “one less vote” than she would have otherwise, she has the exact same number. So this is also wrong.
If the premise is to avoid a trump election, then you are incorrect here. If the premise is solely talking about whether abstaining is helping or hurting, then you are right. But, the argument of "if you aren't voting for harris you are voting for trump" that I'm endeavoring to explain (in a hopefully helpful or at least friendly way) is predicated on the notion that those saying that are working to prevent a trump election. In that specific scenario, which is the root of all this discussion, then yes, if one is not helping the side opposed to trump, they are helping trump, even if that help is by inaction. The being dead position isn't analogous enough to be an accurate comparison because the dead can't vote.
Next you commented the following
When they say you voting 3rd party is a vote for trump, it’s not literal. You just said it was literal.
I can see how this could be misinterpreted. Those saying "if you aren't voting for harris you are voting for trump" are not making a literal assertion that you are voting for trump. It's intention is closer to "...you are helping trump" It's not meant as a literal statement that your vote is tallied under trump. Likewise I'm not asserting that votes are literally being tallied for trump when you abstain or vote 3rd party. My statement was the exact opposite and again in-line with your opinion.
Next you replied to
If you don’t help a cause, you hurt it. And the same goes for 3rd parties. If you don’t help them, you hurt them.
Categorically false. If someone on the other side of the world murders someone, and I did nothing to help the victim, did I hurt them? No, I just didn’t help them. The baseline or zero-point is non-involvement.
That analogy doesn't work because in that case you can do nothing to help the victim on the other side of the world and have no involvement, nor is there any group component. A closer analogy would be something like "Someone was about to be murdered but there are 5 people with buttons in front of them. If 3 of the buttons are pressed the person will live." In this scenario which more closely resembles the scenario we are discussing, your inaction could lead to the person being murdered if only two other people press their button, the inaction of you and the remaining others resulted in a murder. It may have no impact at all if there are 3 people that press regardless of you, or maybe everyone is apathetic and no one presses, but your button press could also be what saves the person. That's more like what voting is like. In the end, you may or may not matter. But you take a few "doesn't matter" people here and there throughout the country and it makes an impact one way or another, especially in states where races get close. A local election in my own state was decided by a matter of 28 votes. While federal is broader it's the same concept.
Next
Again, false. I’m not increasing the chances for their competition, I’m just not decreasing their chances.
Ehhhh, that's a bit of a semantic wordplay that's not entirely truthful because it only works in a hard literal sense. So by not decreasing the chances of the trump, you are definitely increasing the chances he gets elected by however small an amount that may be. If you just don't vote, or vote 3rd party, you have decreased his chances to a degree because he doesn't get your vote, but you do more by voting for harris, because you help her increase as well as not increase trump. It becomes a compound effect and so one could say by not opting for the compounded effect, you've aided trump by not opposing him as much as possible.
Lastly,
I have no idea if “most people” view it that way or not, but regardless, it’s not how I view it and I don’t think it’s a reasonable way to view it.
I say "most people" talking about the group we find ourselves in here. It's a probably little hyperbolic to say "most", just anecdotally what I've witnessed here. And as far as being reasonable or not I don't have a real strong opinion either way here. I do tend to find that that's not always a reasonable way to view things. In the position of the argument, "if you aren't voting for Harris you are helping trump" I tend to think it's accurate. But it's fine, we don't have to agree on anything. I'm not trying to convert anyone at this point. People are gonna people and at this point in the election cycle people's minds are already made up. I was just trying to give some info to the position regardless of my opinion on it. :)
-
The crux of the disagreement comes down to where you define the zero point. If the zero point is defined as doing nothing, then doing nothing is not helping anyone. If the zero point is voting democrat, then doing nothing is helping Trump. If the zero point if voting Trump, then doing nothing is helping Harris.
There is no logical reason why the zero point should be defined as voting for one candidate or the other. Therefore it is incorrect to say not voting for one candidate "helps" the other.
-
Yeah, that's pretty much it. And I'd say the people you are talking to saying your 3rd party vote is helping trump are defining that zero point as a vote for harris. Nice talking with you though. 🙂
-
-
-
In any literal sense this is true.
It is very much false, in any literal sense
I don't think you read the post you were responding to for understanding, you just read it for disagreement, because it doesn't say here what you act like it says. Re-read it.
-
-
-
-