If you actually believe democrats and republicans are the same then yes, you “win”. Voting third party would be the correct choice.
The existence of the phrase “strategic voting” proves a vote is not a blind show of support. A vote in a FPTP system reveals only that you think that candidate is 1. better than the alternatives and 2. meaningfully more likely to win if you vote for them. Adhering to the politicians’ lie that a vote means full support isn’t logically consistent with how people make choices in the voting booth. Even in ranked choice voting a vote doesn’t signal full support, although it would only signal #1 and not #2, which is a meaningful improvement.
If you actually believe democrats and republicans are the same then yes, you “win”.
Why do you types insist on pretending that you’re more obtuse than a caveman? Do you pretend not to understand arguments because you know you cannot make it in a straightforward discussion ?
Voting third party would be the correct choice.
If you put faith in the electoral system, yes. Glas we agree.
The existence of the phrase “strategic voting” proves a vote is not a blind show of support.
As did your statement that voted despite certain policies. As I’ve detailed, that doesn’t matter. The existence of the catholic church isnt proof of god.
Adhering to the politicians’ lie that a vote means full support isn’t logically consistent with how people make choices in the voting booth.
So you admit politicians claim legitimacy from votes. Neat. What isn’t logical is then continuing to support them, when that is what they do.
Again, the rest of your spiel is pointless. What matters is the practical reality of what a vote is and does, which you’ve admitted yourself is a sign that you support that politician. You can say whatever you want to make yourself feel good about voting for genociding police-state fascists, the police state fascists only care that you vote for them, not why.
If your argument is that from the politicians’ perspective they believe, or claim to believe, that people support them based on the amount of votes they receive while ignoring the context of what the other choices in that vote are, and use those votes as proof they should continue holding their current policies, then yes, that’s probably true. My reaction to this would be to say the proper place to give a politician “legitimacy” by voting for or against their policies while avoiding the negative consequences of a protest vote getting someone like Trump elected is in the primaries, not the general.
Neat! Or whatever, I couldnt really give a fuck what you believe or your reaction is or whatever. I dont live in the fantasy-land you construct in order to avoid engaging with basic concepts, I live in the world where you dont vote “for or against policies” you vote for a party or a politician and that group or person uses the vote as a point of support for their policies. I think im going to end my interaction with this discussion here, because there’s nothing to gain from it at this point, its pretty clear you just want to play make-pretend.
If you actually believe democrats and republicans are the same then yes, you “win”. Voting third party would be the correct choice.
The existence of the phrase “strategic voting” proves a vote is not a blind show of support. A vote in a FPTP system reveals only that you think that candidate is 1. better than the alternatives and 2. meaningfully more likely to win if you vote for them. Adhering to the politicians’ lie that a vote means full support isn’t logically consistent with how people make choices in the voting booth. Even in ranked choice voting a vote doesn’t signal full support, although it would only signal #1 and not #2, which is a meaningful improvement.
Why do you types insist on pretending that you’re more obtuse than a caveman? Do you pretend not to understand arguments because you know you cannot make it in a straightforward discussion ?
If you put faith in the electoral system, yes. Glas we agree.
As did your statement that voted despite certain policies. As I’ve detailed, that doesn’t matter. The existence of the catholic church isnt proof of god.
So you admit politicians claim legitimacy from votes. Neat. What isn’t logical is then continuing to support them, when that is what they do.
Again, the rest of your spiel is pointless. What matters is the practical reality of what a vote is and does, which you’ve admitted yourself is a sign that you support that politician. You can say whatever you want to make yourself feel good about voting for genociding police-state fascists, the police state fascists only care that you vote for them, not why.
If your argument is that from the politicians’ perspective they believe, or claim to believe, that people support them based on the amount of votes they receive while ignoring the context of what the other choices in that vote are, and use those votes as proof they should continue holding their current policies, then yes, that’s probably true. My reaction to this would be to say the proper place to give a politician “legitimacy” by voting for or against their policies while avoiding the negative consequences of a protest vote getting someone like Trump elected is in the primaries, not the general.
Neat! Or whatever, I couldnt really give a fuck what you believe or your reaction is or whatever. I dont live in the fantasy-land you construct in order to avoid engaging with basic concepts, I live in the world where you dont vote “for or against policies” you vote for a party or a politician and that group or person uses the vote as a point of support for their policies. I think im going to end my interaction with this discussion here, because there’s nothing to gain from it at this point, its pretty clear you just want to play make-pretend.