You're viewing part of a thread.
I agree, it’s extremely obvious. I’m not arguing against it. I’m arguing against your claim that voting 3rd party puts any meaningful pressure on Democrats.
It's not "outlandish" at all. You can't agree that it's "extremely obvious" that democrats care about gaining or losing votes in one case and that it's "outlandish" in another, it's completely arbitrary.
Because it’s obvious. The outlandish claim is that throwing away your vote is better than using it to avoid the worse outcome.
I don't consider that obvious at all. First off, I dispute the claim that voting third party is "throwing your vote away," because I've already established the effects it can have regardless of not winning. But I also assert that it's better to throw away your vote than to support someone who is fundamentally unacceptable.
I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser evilism, or to act utilitarianism. It is not ethical to kill a healthy person to get the organs necessary to save five people. It is not ethical to murder someone because someone threatens to murder two people if you don't. Y'all act like your ethical framework is just "obvious," objectively true, and the only one that exists, but that's completely false, and it falls apart as indefensible under scrutiny.
In addition, it's just a bad negotiation tactic.
It's not "outlandish" at all. You can't agree that it's "extremely obvious" that democrats care about gaining or losing votes in one case and that it's "outlandish" in another, it's completely arbitrary.
I didn't say it was "outlandish" to claim they care about gaining votes. I said it's outlandish to claim that voting 3rd party does anything to meaningfully pressure them into changing their policies to capture your vote. They are more concerned about changing their policies to capture the center-right, like you said.
I don't consider that obvious at all. First off, I dispute the claim that voting third party is "throwing your vote away," because I've already established the effects it can have regardless of not winning
No you have not.
But I also assert that it's better to throw away your vote than to support someone who is fundamentally unacceptable.
That is a ridiculous assertion.
I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser evilism, or to act utilitarianism.
There it is. You don't care any of the work that has to happen over the next 4 years to push for positive change. You just care about virtue-signaling.
more concerned
I agree that they are more concerned about the center-right (mostly because the center-right is more prone to defecting while the left just falls in line), but that does not mean that they are not at all concerned about losing the left, or that a change in strategy couldn't make them concerned about that.
There it is. You don’t care any of the work that has to happen over the next 4 years to push for positive change. You just care about virtue-signaling.
How does not being an act utilitarian mean that I just care about virtue-signaling? Do you know what act utilitarianism is? Do you think it has something to do with taking actions vs not taking actions?
Act utilitarianism is an ethical framework that is based around judging specific acts to determine which action produces the most utility, in contrast to rule utilitarianism, which is about judging which general rules tend to produce the most utility.
I think I see where this is headed.
Am I right to say that you view casting a vote as an endorsement of a candidate/party (like MAGA does), rather than as a chess move (like Liberals do)?
Obvious, a vote is an endorsement, yes. Whether MAGA does or Liberals don't, I don't know anything about that and don't particularly care.
But even if you want to treat it as a chess move, it's a bad one. It's tactically wrong as well as ethically.
Obvious, a vote is an endorsement, yes.
Nope, that's merely your opinion.
It's tactically wrong
False.
False.
Then prove that voting is objectively and endorsement of a candidate/party. That's your claim.
For the second, you already agreed previously that it is tactically the best move.
Then prove that voting is objectively and endorsement of a candidate/party. That’s your claim.
That's just definitionally what those words mean. To say "This candidate is the best choice, I'm voting for them and others should to" is an endorsement, and to say "I endorse this candidate" means, "This candidate is the best choice, I'm voting for them and others should too." I suppose you could argue they're technically different if you lie about how you're voting or don't tell anyone about it.
For the second, you already agreed previously that it is tactically the best move.
Blatant lie. I have consistently disagreed with that at every single point of this conversation.
That's just definitionally what those words mean. To say "This candidate is the best choice, I'm voting for them and others should to" is an endorsement, and to say "I endorse this candidate" means, "This candidate is the best choice, I'm voting for them and others should too."
Under FPTP, one can absolutely use their vote to denounce a candidate and vote against them taking office. Especially if that vote has a chance of actually pushing the needle far enough to make that happen.
Blatant lie. I have consistently disagreed with that at every single point of this conversation.
Blatant lie.
You agreed that:
- Kamala or Trump will be elected president
- Trump losing would be better overall in the short term
- Trump losing would be better overall in the long term
Do you need me to link that for you?
Under FPTP, one can absolutely use their vote to denounce a candidate and vote against them taking office.
Only by contradicting yourself. To denounce a candidate is to say that you shouldn't vote for them.
Do you need me to link that for you?
None of those things are the same as concluding that voting for Kamala is tactically correct, which I have repeatedly explained to you and been completely consistent on. That you think I should conclude that is not the same as me concluding it. To say that that's what I concluded and that I already conceded the point when I've plainly told you otherwise is a blatant lie. You will retract that claim or this conversation is over, I will not continue with someone who lies about what I said.