You trying to bully and pressure me is either privilege or sociopathy.
I did neither, in fact I don’t even respond to your comment where you might think I was responding directly to you.
Considering any third party is viable in the system as it exists today, make as much sense as playing Chess using the rules from Candy Land. It’s delusional and detached from reality.
It’s an unfortunate mathematical truth and no amount of wishing it otherwise will change that. That’s why for any non-primary election, it must be treated as harm reduction above all.
How election math works: a vote for Harris is taking a vote away from a third party candidate and is giving it to Trump.
I’ll leave this here in hopes you’ll watch it. There is no way for what you’re hoping to actually succeed in the current environment. The only way out is through and the only way through is voting as harm reduction.
1, voting is not harm reduction, and 2, that video has given you a false conclusion. the lesson we should learn is that strategic voting leads to party consolidation, and the only way to keep third parties is to continue to vote for them.
Yes absolutely it is 2. I remember this account and it makes total sense you're campaigning for Jill fucking Stein. Jesus Christ 🤮
harm reduction is a specific thing. voting is not harm reduction.
Unless you care about truth in which case it absolutely is harm reduction
harm reduction has a specific definition. voting is not harm reduction.
Not really interested in your pedantry that probably isn't even technically correct (not that it matters)
This poster gets SOOO close to making an observation that would utterly destroy its half-baked, IMO inauthentic reasoning, if it'd only take a closer look at what it's saying. So, I'll close the gap here.
Suppose we could wave our magic wand and get everyone to agree with this poster, getting everyone who is voting Kamala Harris today to vote for ... Rachele Fruit. But the price of this vote is that everyone who WAS voting Rachele Fruit now has to vote Kamala Harris. Suddenly, it's Harris who is spoiling the vote for Fruit...and Jill Stein remains as much as spoiler for Fruit in this magic universe as she is for Harris in this real one. That's the problem with third parties. No matter how the votes line up, whether it be for the Social Workers Party in this parallel universe or the Democrats in this one, votes for Third Parties merely harm your political ideology by taking away votes from the major party on your side of the political aisle and empower the major party most opposite of your ideology. You'd have to go to another parallel where we made Ranked Choice voting work before you could risk a SWP vote in a Rep-Dem world or a Dem vote in a Rep-SWP world.
SOOOO close, yet so far away.
I don't care. I am happily voting third-party. Even if you don't like it. Thank you! :)
I did neither, in fact I don’t even respond to your comment where you might think I was responding directly to you.
Considering any third party is viable in the system as it exists today, make as much sense as playing Chess using the rules from Candy Land. It’s delusional and detached from reality.
It’s an unfortunate mathematical truth and no amount of wishing it otherwise will change that. That’s why for any non-primary election, it must be treated as harm reduction above all.
How election math works: a vote for Harris is taking a vote away from a third party candidate and is giving it to Trump.
I’ll leave this here in hopes you’ll watch it. There is no way for what you’re hoping to actually succeed in the current environment. The only way out is through and the only way through is voting as harm reduction.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
1, voting is not harm reduction, and 2, that video has given you a false conclusion. the lesson we should learn is that strategic voting leads to party consolidation, and the only way to keep third parties is to continue to vote for them.
harm reduction is a specific thing. voting is not harm reduction.
Unless you care about truth in which case it absolutely is harm reduction
harm reduction has a specific definition. voting is not harm reduction.
Not really interested in your pedantry that probably isn't even technically correct (not that it matters)
https://www.indigenousaction.org/voting-is-not-harm-reduction-an-indigenous-perspective/
The url itself says it's talking about a specific context that has nothing to do with this.
I can't make you read
and I can't make you stop propping up horrific voting practices
I'm voting third party. I don't care what you think. Thank you!
This poster gets SOOO close to making an observation that would utterly destroy its half-baked, IMO inauthentic reasoning, if it'd only take a closer look at what it's saying. So, I'll close the gap here.
Suppose we could wave our magic wand and get everyone to agree with this poster, getting everyone who is voting Kamala Harris today to vote for ... Rachele Fruit. But the price of this vote is that everyone who WAS voting Rachele Fruit now has to vote Kamala Harris. Suddenly, it's Harris who is spoiling the vote for Fruit...and Jill Stein remains as much as spoiler for Fruit in this magic universe as she is for Harris in this real one. That's the problem with third parties. No matter how the votes line up, whether it be for the Social Workers Party in this parallel universe or the Democrats in this one, votes for Third Parties merely harm your political ideology by taking away votes from the major party on your side of the political aisle and empower the major party most opposite of your ideology. You'd have to go to another parallel where we made Ranked Choice voting work before you could risk a SWP vote in a Rep-Dem world or a Dem vote in a Rep-SWP world.
SOOOO close, yet so far away.
I don't care. I am happily voting third-party. Even if you don't like it. Thank you! :)