• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Not voting is no different than voting for Jill.

    wrong. voting for jill adds 1 vote for jill. not voting adds 0 votes for jill.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Unfortunately, when the votes are counted, whoever has the most votes wins.

      It doesn’t matter if the “not Trump” vote gets split across 1 candidate or 4 candidates, if Trump gets more votes than any one of them HE WINS.

      Trump - 40%
      Joe - 35%
      Jill - 15%
      West - 10%

      Trump wins. Even though “not Trump” is 60%.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        yep. i guess the democrats better drop out and throw their support behind a candidate other people can stomach.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Unfortunately, it’s not up to “the Democrats”, it’s up to the DNC and there is no way they will back anyone else unless Joe has a major medical event between now and election day.

          Even if he did drop out, they would push Harris who is poison right now.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Won’t happen as long as they need money from Zionists and Evangelists.

              Maybe if we had public funding of elections.

      • voidMainVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        The problem is that, in a democracy, you have to vote for the best candidate. Otherwise, democracy doesn’t work. If you decide to vote for a candidate "you don’t like* (i.e. “strategic voting”), you are contributing to the problem.

        People call it “voting for the lesser evil”, but a vote for a lesser evil…is still a vote for evil. So, while it isn’t as wrong as voting for Trump, it’s still wrong.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Coalescing behind a candidate to defeat the worst choice is not wrong. Especially when the worst candidate will win otherwise.

          Now, in an election that goes to a run off if nobody gets 50%+1 - Great, vote for who you want. But be prepared to coalesce in the run off.

          Unfortunately, presedential elections aren’t subject to a run off.