this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
327 points (83.2% liked)

Asklemmy

44182 readers
1610 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Eiri@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (10 children)

That is not the question. The question is: it's a binary choice. People should be aware that not voting helps the worst candidate win. Why not vote for the less bad candidate then?

[–] linkerbaan@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

It is not a binary choice. When people vote third party it shows politicians supporting Israel comes with political consequences.

Voting for Green is the best thing a voter can do. Even forgiving Democrats for being complicit in an entire year of Genocide would be questionable. But Democrats are not distancing themselves from the Genocide. They are literally saying they want to continue the Genocide and start a war with Iran too.

Democrats aren't going to magically do what you want if you reward them for bad behavior. Instead they will double down on bad behavior.

Life lasts longer than 4 years.

[–] Eiri@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

In a ranked choice system or other better voting system, yes.

In the current system, voting for anyone but the least bad choice among the two that stand a chance is almost like giving your vote to the one that has the best chances, regardless of your preferences.

Look up the spoiler effect in elections.

Or, CGP Grey has an excellent explanation of the whole thing.

https://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom

[–] linkerbaan@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago

Your logic works assuming the world lasts 4 years.

load more comments (7 replies)