I was always clear that the act of voting for 3rd party/ spoiler candidates can result in a situation where trump pulls ahead by your vote’s absence. I never said it was a literal vote for trump.
This is basic decision making and it’s very concerning you can’t grasp it.
you said it helps trump, but only a vote for trump helps trump. you’re spreading election misinformation. if it takes this much nuance to try (and still fail) to make your claims true, try just being intellectually honest.
You don’t understand first past the post voting and basic decision making. The fact that you dont understand absolute basic first past the post voting, for a country you might actually live in is hilarious.
I understand the story you’re telling about fptp, and I am telling you it’s a myth. the fact that you are passing along this received wisdom with so little scrutiny speaks volumes about your own critical thinking skills. to land on an appeal to ridicule as your coup de grace is just the finishing touch one might expect.
You’re obviously just baiting, but for readers on, I’ll post this hyper simplified situation I commented already.
5 total voters.
2 for trump 1 for Biden 1 for Mickey and 1 abstains
Trump wins.
If the mickey and the abstain voters don’t want trump, their best action was to vote for Biden, as that would have achieved:
2 for trump
3 for Biden
0 for mickey.
Biden wins.
In competitive locations, votes are a scarce resource.
By not voting for Biden, you have helped trump, and not achieved your own voting goal all the while. You never voted for trump, but your actions aided his victory.
Just repeating it and sticking your head in the sand doesn’t make it so.
If you feel capable of refuting the point, lay out any example you can provide, that meets my original premise. Edit I provided a clear simple case to discuss the situation, which you haven’t been able to refute.
(Edit: For clarity), I acknowledge many places in the US are NOT competitive, thus the scarce vote concept is much less relevant. Location was always in my comments, so that is not a goalpost move.
There are 2 competitive candidates for president. One of them WILL be president.
How you get there is a mix of direct and indirect actions. You do not seem able to grasp or refute that indirect actions can have an influence on the frontrunners.
Except you. Scurry off in your lying shame
Edit to be clear
I was always clear that the act of voting for 3rd party/ spoiler candidates can result in a situation where trump pulls ahead by your vote’s absence. I never said it was a literal vote for trump.
This is basic decision making and it’s very concerning you can’t grasp it.
you said it helps trump, but only a vote for trump helps trump. you’re spreading election misinformation. if it takes this much nuance to try (and still fail) to make your claims true, try just being intellectually honest.
I understand the story you’re telling about fptp, and I am telling you it’s a myth. the fact that you are passing along this received wisdom with so little scrutiny speaks volumes about your own critical thinking skills. to land on an appeal to ridicule as your coup de grace is just the finishing touch one might expect.
You’re obviously just baiting, but for readers on, I’ll post this hyper simplified situation I commented already.
5 total voters.
2 for trump 1 for Biden 1 for Mickey and 1 abstains
Trump wins.
If the mickey and the abstain voters don’t want trump, their best action was to vote for Biden, as that would have achieved:
2 for trump 3 for Biden 0 for mickey.
Biden wins.
In competitive locations, votes are a scarce resource.
By not voting for Biden, you have helped trump, and not achieved your own voting goal all the while. You never voted for trump, but your actions aided his victory.
only a vote for trump helps trump, no matter how long you make your favorite bedtime story
Just repeating it and sticking your head in the sand doesn’t make it so.
If you feel capable of refuting the point, lay out any example you can provide, that meets my original premise. Edit I provided a clear simple case to discuss the situation, which you haven’t been able to refute.
(Edit: For clarity), I acknowledge many places in the US are NOT competitive, thus the scarce vote concept is much less relevant. Location was always in my comments, so that is not a goalpost move.
Removed by mod
Ok Dr strange.
There are 2 competitive candidates for president. One of them WILL be president.
How you get there is a mix of direct and indirect actions. You do not seem able to grasp or refute that indirect actions can have an influence on the frontrunners.
That’s on you.
how can I refuted a fiction, except by saying “you made that up”?
If you can’t meet a toy case, you aren’t ready to discuss the real world.