“The climate movement doesn’t have a persuasion problem as much as we have a turnout problem,” says Nathaniel Stinnett of the Environmental Voter Project.
i’ve been donating to cornel west monthly, but i might end up voting for jill stein again anyway, and it has literally nothing to do with what republicans think is in their own interest.
Polls make it very clear that they both serve as spoilers in the general election. Every bit of support they have means that Trump is more likely to be elected.
Polls make it very clear that they both serve as spoilers in the general election
not for me. i haven’t voted for a democrat for president since 2008. i don’t believe you’ll find a single person who is voting for them who would have otherwise voted for biden or trump.
the narrative of spoilers assumes that the votes belong to one party and are stolen by the other. this is wrong. the votes belong to the voters and it is up to candidates to win them.
It’s reality though; their decision to be on the ballot (and yours to provide financial support) increases the odds of a Trump win.
Changing how elections are done could change that, but under the system we have, that’s what the impact of your actions is, no matter what you tell yourself.
Cornel West is financially supported by big-time Republican donors for precisely because of this.
i have a policy of voting only for candidates who i want to win. it’s not a team sport for me. its not placing a bet for me. it’s a matter of choosing the candidate i want to win.
I’m not looking at it as a team sport; I’m looking at “Of the candidates who can actually win, who would I rather be elected if my vote was the deciding vote?”
Deciding to vote for somebody who has too small a coalition to possibly be elected is a decision to make it easier for the candidate who could win, but whom I find the least attractive, to actually win.
Deciding to vote for somebody who has too small a coalition to possibly be elected is a decision to make it easier for the candidate who could win, but whom I find the least attractive, to actually win.
that’s one story, but it assumes a consequentialist ethic. a deontological ethic would dictate voting for the right person every time regardless of possible outcomes. in casting such a vote i’m voting against all the other candidates who i think should not win.
That’s a rather naive and myopic way of looking at politics and you ought to do more research before committing your vote.
i’ve been donating to cornel west monthly, but i might end up voting for jill stein again anyway, and it has literally nothing to do with what republicans think is in their own interest.
Polls make it very clear that they both serve as spoilers in the general election. Every bit of support they have means that Trump is more likely to be elected.
not for me. i haven’t voted for a democrat for president since 2008. i don’t believe you’ll find a single person who is voting for them who would have otherwise voted for biden or trump.
the narrative of spoilers assumes that the votes belong to one party and are stolen by the other. this is wrong. the votes belong to the voters and it is up to candidates to win them.
It’s reality though; their decision to be on the ballot (and yours to provide financial support) increases the odds of a Trump win.
Changing how elections are done could change that, but under the system we have, that’s what the impact of your actions is, no matter what you tell yourself.
Cornel West is financially supported by big-time Republican donors for precisely because of this.
i have a policy of voting only for candidates who i want to win. it’s not a team sport for me. its not placing a bet for me. it’s a matter of choosing the candidate i want to win.
I’m not looking at it as a team sport; I’m looking at “Of the candidates who can actually win, who would I rather be elected if my vote was the deciding vote?”
Deciding to vote for somebody who has too small a coalition to possibly be elected is a decision to make it easier for the candidate who could win, but whom I find the least attractive, to actually win.
that’s one story, but it assumes a consequentialist ethic. a deontological ethic would dictate voting for the right person every time regardless of possible outcomes. in casting such a vote i’m voting against all the other candidates who i think should not win.
We have to live with the consequences, no matter out philosophical approaches. That’s why I care about outcomes.