If you want to understand, I can explain fairly simply.
Consider this thought experiment. We are getting $100 to split, but only if they can agree on how to split it: I get to make an offer, then you choose whether to accept. If you announce that you’ll accept whatever deal so long as accepting is better than the alternative - that is, that you’ll act “rationally” - then the rational thing for me to do is to offer you only $1, while I get $99. Researchers have actually tested this game in real life, however, and it generally doesn’t play out that way. Why? Because the numbers don’t tell the whole story of what you’re giving up by accepting a bad deal. Once you’ve demonstrated that you’ll accept a deal like that, then you’re communicating something about your behavior for all future deals. It may be rational in the context of a closed experiment, but for the general case, our minds know better than what may appear “rational” at first glance. If you tell me, “I will refuse anything less than $30,” then you are openly declaring that you intend to behave “irrationally” and trying to convince me that you will - and it would most likely produce better results than behaving “rationally.”
The moment that you say, “My only condition for voting for the democrats is that they be better than the republicans, who are unimaginably horrible,” you have sacrificed every ounce of bargaining power that you could’ve wielded. So the real calculation is not “Who’s better between Trump and Biden,” but rather, is the difference between Trump and Biden worth sacrificing all my bargaining power?" And for me, the fact that Biden is supporting genocide makes that decision very easy and straightforward. I’d rather at least try to leverage what power I have against genocide altogether, rather than supporting the “lesser genocide.” If I cannot set even something like genocide as a red line, then I am very clearly communicating to politicians that they can count on my vote no matter what they do, and they have no reason to ever consider my political priorities.
This is a false equivalence though: In the thought experiment, you denying to split ensures that none of you get anything. In this real-world scenario, you refusing to make a choice between more or less genocide increases the chances of “more genocide” winning. By not making a choice, you aren’t punishing the person proposing the deal, you’re just allowing someone else to make the choice for you.
There are elections in which it makes sense to vote against a candidate like Biden: In every election where there is a better choice on the table. That includes primaries, it includes backing candidates opposed to him in local elections, and elections for the house and senate. That is when you make your stand.
By not voting, in any specific election, you are simply giving up your right to have an impact on the outcome. That means that if the outcome is an increase in people killed, you are responsible, because you had the option to save lives, and chose not to take it.
By voting for the lesser of two evils, you are not signalling that you accept the lesser evil, but simply that you believe it is the best possible choice of those given. You can signal that you dislike the lesser evil by voting against it when an even lesser evil is on the table (or, preferably, something actually good).
Also, it’s not like “the democrats” tactically choose a candidate that they think the voters will reluctantly accept. The candidate is specifically the person that got the most votes in the primaries. The candidates in the primaries are typically people who got enough votes to be either governor or senator or something previously. By consistently voting for the better candidate in all those elections, you can actually have an impact on the presidential nominee, and signal your beliefs to the political party, without running the risk of having a wannabe dictator become president.
It’s not a false equivalence because I never claimed it was equivalent. The purpose of the hypothetical is to explain a concept, not to draw a direct comparison.
Not voting for Biden is punishing Biden because it’s denying him something that he wants. I’m not allowing other people to make the decision for me, it’s not as if my vote passes to the next person in line or something.
Primaries are not legitimate elections. There is no oversight and no legal requirement that they be conducted fairly, or even that they be conducted at all. The democratic establishment has the ability to influence the outcome or cancel them altogether, which it exercises regularly. What should I do if the democrats said, “We’re not doing primaries at all any more, we’re going back to the old days where party elites select candidates in smoke-filled rooms?” Should I just give them my full compliance?
I reject lesser evilism for reasons I already explained.
I am not responsible if withholding my vote leads to an increase in people being killed. That’s not how responsibility works. The responsibility is on the people doing the killing, the people ordering them to, and the people supplying them with the means to do so. It’s like if a serial killer tried to plead “not guilty” on the basis that one of his hostages refused to cooperate and that caused him to fly into a rage and kill more people so it’s really the hostage who should be tried for murder. It’s an absurdity, and frankly it betrays a refusal, in your psyche, to hold politicians accountable for their failures and misdeeds, instead trying to shift the blame onto ordinary people.
In a lot of countries you can be held legally accountable for not helping someone, and your negligence leads to death or injury. I think that’s quite similar to refusing to vote, when voting can save lives.
Your vote does effectively pass to the next person in line, because you not voting means their vote becomes a larger proportion of the total. By not voting you are blindly accepting the will of others, without using your possibility of affecting the outcome.
Saying that there are no legal requirements for a primary is not a good argument for abstaining from voting in them. By your own arguments, the candidates want votes, and the party wants to nominate a candidate that has wide support. Voting in primaries is, if nothing else, a clear way of signalling what candidates you want.
In a lot of countries you can be held legally accountable for not helping someone, and your negligence leads to death or injury
In every country, giving assistance to one criminal to stop a different criminal is still a crime.
Your vote does effectively pass to the next person in line, because you not voting means their vote becomes a larger proportion of the total.
No it doesn’t.
An individual vote is extremely unlikely to affect the outcome, but what it does affect are the margins, which can be factored into future calculations. A non-voter or a third party voter is someone who could potentially be won over. My vote still exists regardless of whether I exercise it or not, and nobody else gets to use it if I don’t. I completely disagree with your framing, always have, and always will.
Saying that there are no legal requirements for a primary is not a good argument for abstaining from voting in them.
I didn’t mean that you shouldn’t vote in primaries. What I meant is that I don’t believe in relying on something that the DNC provides, controls, and could take away at any time, as a reliable method of opposition.
Based on my experience, they’re probably about to show up and complain that two paragraphs is too long to read, or chime in with some cheap rhetorical snipes, or pick apart the hypothetical for not being directly analogous while ignoring the concept that it’s there to demonstrate - basically whatever brings the conversation closer to a cable news tier of debate.
If you want to understand, I can explain fairly simply.
Consider this thought experiment. We are getting $100 to split, but only if they can agree on how to split it: I get to make an offer, then you choose whether to accept. If you announce that you’ll accept whatever deal so long as accepting is better than the alternative - that is, that you’ll act “rationally” - then the rational thing for me to do is to offer you only $1, while I get $99. Researchers have actually tested this game in real life, however, and it generally doesn’t play out that way. Why? Because the numbers don’t tell the whole story of what you’re giving up by accepting a bad deal. Once you’ve demonstrated that you’ll accept a deal like that, then you’re communicating something about your behavior for all future deals. It may be rational in the context of a closed experiment, but for the general case, our minds know better than what may appear “rational” at first glance. If you tell me, “I will refuse anything less than $30,” then you are openly declaring that you intend to behave “irrationally” and trying to convince me that you will - and it would most likely produce better results than behaving “rationally.”
The moment that you say, “My only condition for voting for the democrats is that they be better than the republicans, who are unimaginably horrible,” you have sacrificed every ounce of bargaining power that you could’ve wielded. So the real calculation is not “Who’s better between Trump and Biden,” but rather, is the difference between Trump and Biden worth sacrificing all my bargaining power?" And for me, the fact that Biden is supporting genocide makes that decision very easy and straightforward. I’d rather at least try to leverage what power I have against genocide altogether, rather than supporting the “lesser genocide.” If I cannot set even something like genocide as a red line, then I am very clearly communicating to politicians that they can count on my vote no matter what they do, and they have no reason to ever consider my political priorities.
Thank you for taking the time to explain. That is by far the best answer I’ve seen.
And yet your actions will lead to “more genocide” while you go and jerk off in the mirror with your newly gained bargaining power! Good job!
Thank you!
This is a false equivalence though: In the thought experiment, you denying to split ensures that none of you get anything. In this real-world scenario, you refusing to make a choice between more or less genocide increases the chances of “more genocide” winning. By not making a choice, you aren’t punishing the person proposing the deal, you’re just allowing someone else to make the choice for you.
There are elections in which it makes sense to vote against a candidate like Biden: In every election where there is a better choice on the table. That includes primaries, it includes backing candidates opposed to him in local elections, and elections for the house and senate. That is when you make your stand.
By not voting, in any specific election, you are simply giving up your right to have an impact on the outcome. That means that if the outcome is an increase in people killed, you are responsible, because you had the option to save lives, and chose not to take it.
By voting for the lesser of two evils, you are not signalling that you accept the lesser evil, but simply that you believe it is the best possible choice of those given. You can signal that you dislike the lesser evil by voting against it when an even lesser evil is on the table (or, preferably, something actually good).
Also, it’s not like “the democrats” tactically choose a candidate that they think the voters will reluctantly accept. The candidate is specifically the person that got the most votes in the primaries. The candidates in the primaries are typically people who got enough votes to be either governor or senator or something previously. By consistently voting for the better candidate in all those elections, you can actually have an impact on the presidential nominee, and signal your beliefs to the political party, without running the risk of having a wannabe dictator become president.
It’s not a false equivalence because I never claimed it was equivalent. The purpose of the hypothetical is to explain a concept, not to draw a direct comparison.
Not voting for Biden is punishing Biden because it’s denying him something that he wants. I’m not allowing other people to make the decision for me, it’s not as if my vote passes to the next person in line or something.
Primaries are not legitimate elections. There is no oversight and no legal requirement that they be conducted fairly, or even that they be conducted at all. The democratic establishment has the ability to influence the outcome or cancel them altogether, which it exercises regularly. What should I do if the democrats said, “We’re not doing primaries at all any more, we’re going back to the old days where party elites select candidates in smoke-filled rooms?” Should I just give them my full compliance?
I reject lesser evilism for reasons I already explained.
I am not responsible if withholding my vote leads to an increase in people being killed. That’s not how responsibility works. The responsibility is on the people doing the killing, the people ordering them to, and the people supplying them with the means to do so. It’s like if a serial killer tried to plead “not guilty” on the basis that one of his hostages refused to cooperate and that caused him to fly into a rage and kill more people so it’s really the hostage who should be tried for murder. It’s an absurdity, and frankly it betrays a refusal, in your psyche, to hold politicians accountable for their failures and misdeeds, instead trying to shift the blame onto ordinary people.
In a lot of countries you can be held legally accountable for not helping someone, and your negligence leads to death or injury. I think that’s quite similar to refusing to vote, when voting can save lives.
Your vote does effectively pass to the next person in line, because you not voting means their vote becomes a larger proportion of the total. By not voting you are blindly accepting the will of others, without using your possibility of affecting the outcome.
Saying that there are no legal requirements for a primary is not a good argument for abstaining from voting in them. By your own arguments, the candidates want votes, and the party wants to nominate a candidate that has wide support. Voting in primaries is, if nothing else, a clear way of signalling what candidates you want.
In every country, giving assistance to one criminal to stop a different criminal is still a crime.
No it doesn’t.
An individual vote is extremely unlikely to affect the outcome, but what it does affect are the margins, which can be factored into future calculations. A non-voter or a third party voter is someone who could potentially be won over. My vote still exists regardless of whether I exercise it or not, and nobody else gets to use it if I don’t. I completely disagree with your framing, always have, and always will.
I didn’t mean that you shouldn’t vote in primaries. What I meant is that I don’t believe in relying on something that the DNC provides, controls, and could take away at any time, as a reliable method of opposition.
So true. Where’s all the reply guys who love to say “this is russian propaganda! Vote biden!”
Based on my experience, they’re probably about to show up and complain that two paragraphs is too long to read, or chime in with some cheap rhetorical snipes, or pick apart the hypothetical for not being directly analogous while ignoring the concept that it’s there to demonstrate - basically whatever brings the conversation closer to a cable news tier of debate.
Your outstanding reply, plus this article, has me seriously considering voting for Jill Stein.
I have been voting Democrat since Bill Clinton, so this is a big deal for me. Thank you for making me think!