this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
886 points (87.3% liked)

Political Memes

5433 readers
2722 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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?

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.