• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        24 days 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
          24 days 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
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            23 days 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
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                23 days 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.

                • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  23 days ago

                  Seriously man… how many people are you going to let eat your lunch before you just tap out?

                  You’re all over this post getting wrecked left and right. Just stop man. It’s getting sad.

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    23 days ago

                    if you choose not to, you will decrease their chances

                    False. If you chose not to, the chances remain the same.

        • ultranaut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          24 days 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
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            24 days 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
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              24 days 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
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                24 days 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?

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

                  There’s not a yes or no answer to that question except in a theoretical abstraction. In reality politics is complicated, messy, and frequently dumb. The only real answer is it depends on the policy, the demographics and voting habits of the bloc, the politician and parties involved, and myriad more factors beyond these obvious ones. I dispute that allowing Trump to win by not voting for Harris will accomplish anything useful or positive, no one will be taught the lesson you purport to be teaching if that happens.

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

                    Alright, so at least as a theoretical abstraction, it has potential to work. You can argue whether I’m right to try to apply that tactic in this situation, but as a tactic, it is very much logical and coherent.

                    You haven’t actually presented any reason why, given that it works in the abstract, it couldn’t work in this situation. All you’ve said is that it won’t work, but unless you can actually support that position there’s no reason to think that.