As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.
Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.
I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.
Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.
Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.
Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.
Please enlighten us? Just a hypothetical or a realistic one?
It’s so real that its on my ballot. There’s even a fourth and fifth option. And a write in option with an infinite number of possibilities.
Hypothetical then.
You can vote for whoever you want. But you will get one of the two.
Voting for someone else is basically the same as not voting. Sure you make a point, but the result will be the same.
Like I said, if there is nothing else you care about, vote for Pedro or whatever.
I don’t think it even makes a point, but it will salve their conscience, allowing them to firmly believe they stood against genocide while actually doing nothing more than this token gesture that at best has no impact on anything.
If 10% voted for some third party that would make the headlinds.
And be drowned in the rest of the election news and one of the two would win anyway.
Sure, 10% would be a pretty big deal, but 1% in the right places is enough for a different outcome. As this article shows
Given the fact that Stein’s share of voters in 2016 exceeded Trump’s margin of victory over Hillary Clinton, Clinton would have won Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and thus the presidency, if Stein had not been in the race.
Now, I won’t assume that all those voters would have voted for Hillary had Stein not run, but it’s clear that third-party voting can have an impact on who wins, even if they have no chance to win themselves. But the GOP seems to think this could help them, and is willing to spend money on that chance.
If you’re saying that you shouldn’t vote unless your candidate has a chance of winning, you might as well tell every Democrat voter in a red state to stay home on election day.
