• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              that accomplishes nothing but improving the odds of your last choice. It’s not like your vote is an endorsement… everyone knows about strategic voting, so, the fact that you’re voting strategically makes it obvious that you don’t support that person just because you voted for them.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                I doesn’t improve either candidate’s chances at all. And voting is an endorsement, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Not voting for the candidate when you could’ve doesn’t improve the opponents odds?

                    No, it doesn’t. Not voting for a candidate neither increases nor decreases their chances. Voting for a candidate is what increases their chances, voting for their opponent is what decreases them.

                    Actually mathematically false. You’re saying 1+1=4 because if it doesn’t your feefees will be hurt.

                    Nope, it’s actually mathematically false, you’re the one twisting numbers around. Remove me from existence and Trump and Kamala’s chances will be the same, so I’m not increasing or decreasing either’s chances.

                    Voting is in no way shape or form an endorsement of anything

                    Definitionally, endorsing a candidate is when you say, “This candidate is the best choice and I intend to vote for them.” It doesn’t mean, “I agree with everything this candidate says or does.” If you vote for a candidate, tell people you vote for them, and encourage others to vote for them, that is definitionally an endorsement.

                    You’re obviously a teenager whose brain has not fully developed. If you’re an adult, god help us.

                    I’m in my 30’s. You’re just wrong about everything you said.

            • ultranaut@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              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.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Trump is worse than Harris, and one of them will win the election, that is true. But I don’t agree that that means I should vote for Harris. I believe it is necessary to hold politicians to a minimum standard, and that refusing to vote for a candidate that doesn’t meet that standard is a means of enforcing it. Even if a third party can’t win this election, voting for them still serves to establish a credible threat of defection. This is one of many reasons why the ideology of lesser-evilism is incorrect.

                Choosing to not vote or to vote third party reduces the chances of Harris winning and increases the chances of Trump winning

                It does neither of those things, actually. It neither increases nor decreases the chances of either candidate winning.

                • ultranaut@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  The things you believe do not make sense or map to actual reality.

                  What do you think voting is doing if its not increasing or decreasing the likelihood of a candidate winning?

                  If there’s only two possible outcomes between three choices, and one of those choices is clearly the worst outcome and another one of them is clearly not a possible outcome, which choice would you make and why?

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    If a large enough bloc of voters won’t vote unless you support a specific policy, then you have more of an incentive to support that policy. Do you dispute this?

    • rockstarmode@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.