• ultranaut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 minutes ago

        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.