Harm reduction. The two options with a non-zero chance of winning are the two major parties. Voting third-party or not voting is essentially splitting your vote between those two major parties. So in the short term, you vote for the harm reduction option while you work to get better options in the long term.
Democracy isn’t the right to vote for the Democratic Party, it’s the right to vote, period. That means you have to defend the rights of people whose beliefs you strongly disagree with. If you actually care about democracy as a concept, you cannot actually defend the statement “People who don’t vote for me party shouldn’t vote.”
So in the short term, you vote for the harm reduction option
No, you vote for the candidate that you support. That’s how democracy works. If a person decides for themselves that they’re willing to concede some beliefs for a candidate with better odds of winning, who’s better in the long-run, etc., then that’s fine, too, but they (as in, the voter) have to make that decision on their own.
No, I can’t defend a strawman you’re posing. But I don’t have to. I only have to defend my own positions, which are:
Under the current system in the US, voting third party is at best ineffective, but often actively harmful.
People who advocate for people on the left voting third-party are either ignorant of the fact that said actions make a fascist takeover of the US more likely or, worse yet, aware of that fact. Either way, their actions are tantamount to advocating for fascism, whether they’re an intentional bad actor or not.
Your comment above implies that by supporting people’s right to vote, I give up my right to advocate for how they should vote, which is part of where the strawman comes from. I can defend their right to vote whilst also saying that voting certain ways are stupid or harmful. I never have to say “good on ya for making a terrible decision.”
Either Harris will win, or the insurrectionist promising to be a dictator will win. The latter has theocratic fascist groups drawing up game plans and a theocratic fascist SCOTUS has granted him a Long Knife.
“If you actually care about democracy as a concept.” I do. I wish we had democracy instead of FPTP.
Assume I haven’t. Just indulge me, because “we have to prevent people from voting the way they want to vote to protect democracy” doesn’t add up to me.
I remember you from the past. I can explain that your protest vote is not more important than preventing fascism until I’m blue in the face, but it would be like talking to a wall.
You do know there are third party supporters who vote for them because they actually support the policies, right? Although I do suppose this is probably an alien concept for someone whose only reason for voting the way they do is because “they’re not the other guy.”
It’s a protest vote because you know without any doubt whatsoever that the third party candidate could not possibly win. They will surely lose and you will have done nothing to prevent the harm that Trump will certainly bring if elected. It would not be a protest vote if you knew that in America third party candidates could win, but you know the opposite is true.
If you think I’m going back and forth on this bad faith escapade, you’re mistaken. It is literally the same fucking argument every time with you people.
It’s a protest vote because you know without any doubt whatsoever that the third party candidate could not possibly win.
That’s not what a protest vote means. “Vote for the person you want to” is the foundation of democracy. You cannot subvert that concept and still claim to be pro-Democracy.
They will surely lose and you will have done nothing to prevent the harm that Trump will certainly bring if elected.
A well-informed voter would be aware of this and will have decided that support of the third party is worth more than that. As a self-descibred savoir of democracy, you have to respect their choice or recognize yourself as a hypocrite.
It is literally the same fucking argument every time with you people.
Ditto. It’s always the same “We love democracy! Unless you don’t support The Party, then your vote doesn’t matter. Vote for us even if you don’t want to because we’ll protect your right to vote (for our party),” coupled with some weird Abrahamic Doomsday scaremongering to keep the rubes in line.
Logic. We do it with basic logic.
Please break down that logic for me
Harm reduction. The two options with a non-zero chance of winning are the two major parties. Voting third-party or not voting is essentially splitting your vote between those two major parties. So in the short term, you vote for the harm reduction option while you work to get better options in the long term.
Democracy isn’t the right to vote for the Democratic Party, it’s the right to vote, period. That means you have to defend the rights of people whose beliefs you strongly disagree with. If you actually care about democracy as a concept, you cannot actually defend the statement “People who don’t vote for me party shouldn’t vote.”
No, you vote for the candidate that you support. That’s how democracy works. If a person decides for themselves that they’re willing to concede some beliefs for a candidate with better odds of winning, who’s better in the long-run, etc., then that’s fine, too, but they (as in, the voter) have to make that decision on their own.
spoiler
If it stings, that means it’s working.
No, I can’t defend a strawman you’re posing. But I don’t have to. I only have to defend my own positions, which are:
Your comment above implies that by supporting people’s right to vote, I give up my right to advocate for how they should vote, which is part of where the strawman comes from. I can defend their right to vote whilst also saying that voting certain ways are stupid or harmful. I never have to say “good on ya for making a terrible decision.”
Either Harris will win, or the insurrectionist promising to be a dictator will win. The latter has theocratic fascist groups drawing up game plans and a theocratic fascist SCOTUS has granted him a Long Knife.
“If you actually care about democracy as a concept.” I do. I wish we had democracy instead of FPTP.
There’s almost no chance you haven’t heard it a million times and rejected it repeatedly
Assume I haven’t. Just indulge me, because “we have to prevent people from voting the way they want to vote to protect democracy” doesn’t add up to me.
I remember you from the past. I can explain that your protest vote is not more important than preventing fascism until I’m blue in the face, but it would be like talking to a wall.
Who ever said anything about a protest vote?
You do know there are third party supporters who vote for them because they actually support the policies, right? Although I do suppose this is probably an alien concept for someone whose only reason for voting the way they do is because “they’re not the other guy.”
Heh
It’s a protest vote because you know without any doubt whatsoever that the third party candidate could not possibly win. They will surely lose and you will have done nothing to prevent the harm that Trump will certainly bring if elected. It would not be a protest vote if you knew that in America third party candidates could win, but you know the opposite is true.
If you think I’m going back and forth on this bad faith escapade, you’re mistaken. It is literally the same fucking argument every time with you people.
That’s not what a protest vote means. “Vote for the person you want to” is the foundation of democracy. You cannot subvert that concept and still claim to be pro-Democracy.
A well-informed voter would be aware of this and will have decided that support of the third party is worth more than that. As a self-descibred savoir of democracy, you have to respect their choice or recognize yourself as a hypocrite.
Ditto. It’s always the same “We love democracy! Unless you don’t support The Party, then your vote doesn’t matter. Vote for us even if you don’t want to because we’ll protect your right to vote (for our party),” coupled with some weird Abrahamic Doomsday scaremongering to keep the rubes in line.
Didn’t read this boring/unoriginal excuse for an argument
“Assume I haven’t. Just indulge me,” has got to be the most hilarious and self-aware thing a sealion has ever written.