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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
You didn’t answer my question, and thinking through your answer should make it clear why applying that tactic is the dumbest choice you can make under the circumstances if you genuinely believe Trump winning is the worse outcome.
What do you think voting is doing if its not increasing or decreasing the likelihood of a candidate winning?
Establishing a credible threat of defection in response to unacceptable policy. Building up a party that actually represents my interests.
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?
That question is much too abstract.
A third party winning this election is not realistic, but there are other tactical and ethical reasons for voting for them that have nothing to do with winning, as I said.
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.
It does neither of those things, actually. It neither increases nor decreases the chances of either candidate winning.
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?
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?
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.
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.
You didn’t answer my question, and thinking through your answer should make it clear why applying that tactic is the dumbest choice you can make under the circumstances if you genuinely believe Trump winning is the worse outcome.
Establishing a credible threat of defection in response to unacceptable policy. Building up a party that actually represents my interests.
That question is much too abstract.
A third party winning this election is not realistic, but there are other tactical and ethical reasons for voting for them that have nothing to do with winning, as I said.