To convince Greens or Carlins (people who don’t vote because the Democrats are still too evil from their point-of-view) to vote for Democrats, you need to understand yourself and them. Once you do that, you’ll be able to offer more convincing arguments to support your position.
If you’re voting for Democrats, you possibly agree with the following scale of evilness:
10 Hitler
9 Stalin
8.5 Trump
8 Republicans and people who vote for them
7
6
~5-3 elected Democratic party members
2
1 you
0 Jesus
The thing is that Greens and Carlins see the world very differently:
10 people making the biosphere unlivable thru overpopulation
9 factory farmers and commercial fishing companies
8
7 Hitler, Stalin
6
5 George W. Bush, Putin
4 Trump, Republicans, and people who vote for them
3 Gore, Obama, Democrats, and people who vote for them
2
1 Sanders
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7 them
-8
-9
-10
The Greens’ and Carlins’ priorities are very different. They may think that choosing to make the biosphere unlivable is the worst thing you can do, because without a biosphere that supports life, nothing else matters.
They may think that torturing trillions of fish to death every year, and enslaving hundreds of billions of animals in torturous conditions every year, is worse than all genocides and wars in all of history combined. They think that supporting even a single genocide is bad.
They may think that given the choice between popular Hitler, popular Stalin, and unpopular Gandhi; they’d rather vote for Gandhi than the popular lesser evil, because that specific evil is omnicidally evil. It’s better to vote for good and fail, than it is to vote for evil and succeed.
One of the parties CENCORED the EPA from using the word climate change and dropped the USA out of the accords.
HOW FUCKING BRAINDEAD WOULD YOU HAVE TO BE TO LET THAT BASTARD INTO THE OFFICE AGAIN!!!
For me its even simpler though. All of these logical shenanigans are the circular energy that fuels the myth around the unchangeable two party system. If people simply voted for the candidate based on their values and policy, literally everyone to a T, it would shatter the two party system into fragments, and we would have to do something to accommodate them.
Thats at least my theory, although I still voted Harris because in my case my vote is in a place that matters. I would say I’m about half and half happy and upset about it but thats the best I could manage with the circumstances.
I do think momentum is building though if we can continue it through the coming years.
Yeah. Every election in the US. Everybody can vote for whoever they want. And when people vote for someone that isn’t one of the majority parties we get George W Bush instead of Al Gore.
If just 1% of Nader’s voters had voted for Gore instead imagine how much better our would would be.
No it wouldn’t, the two largest parties from that first vote would eventually consume everything else and then we’d be right back where we started.
Unless you intend to abolish FPTP, arguing your intention to vote third party is mathematically the same as arguing your intention to vote for the 2 party candidate who is least like you.
You do know a vote is worth more than just the tally it adds to your candidate right? A vote not changing the result of an election is not the same as not having an effect on politics.
No, it literally is the tally. Under FPTP it is entirely just the tally.
This math has been explained endlessly, trying to escape the proven math doesn’t make you some believer in higher ideals and callings, it makes you complicit in the destruction of the republic.
How many people do you think who you’ve called a traitor are actually going to agree with your position for it? Its eerie how similar that rhetoric is to the republicans right now.
To convince Greens or Carlins (people who don’t vote because the Democrats are still too evil from their point-of-view) to vote for Democrats, you need to understand yourself and them. Once you do that, you’ll be able to offer more convincing arguments to support your position.
If you’re voting for Democrats, you possibly agree with the following scale of evilness:
The thing is that Greens and Carlins see the world very differently:
The Greens’ and Carlins’ priorities are very different. They may think that choosing to make the biosphere unlivable is the worst thing you can do, because without a biosphere that supports life, nothing else matters.
They may think that torturing trillions of fish to death every year, and enslaving hundreds of billions of animals in torturous conditions every year, is worse than all genocides and wars in all of history combined. They think that supporting even a single genocide is bad.
They may think that given the choice between popular Hitler, popular Stalin, and unpopular Gandhi; they’d rather vote for Gandhi than the popular lesser evil, because that specific evil is omnicidally evil. It’s better to vote for good and fail, than it is to vote for evil and succeed.
One of the parties CENCORED the EPA from using the word climate change and dropped the USA out of the accords.
HOW FUCKING BRAINDEAD WOULD YOU HAVE TO BE TO LET THAT BASTARD INTO THE OFFICE AGAIN!!!
For me its even simpler though. All of these logical shenanigans are the circular energy that fuels the myth around the unchangeable two party system. If people simply voted for the candidate based on their values and policy, literally everyone to a T, it would shatter the two party system into fragments, and we would have to do something to accommodate them.
Thats at least my theory, although I still voted Harris because in my case my vote is in a place that matters. I would say I’m about half and half happy and upset about it but thats the best I could manage with the circumstances.
I do think momentum is building though if we can continue it through the coming years.
Your theory has been proven wrong every single time it’s ever been put to the test.
So has yours! Noones been able to change the two party system so far!
Example of when it was tested?
Yeah. Every election in the US. Everybody can vote for whoever they want. And when people vote for someone that isn’t one of the majority parties we get George W Bush instead of Al Gore.
If just 1% of Nader’s voters had voted for Gore instead imagine how much better our would would be.
No it wouldn’t, the two largest parties from that first vote would eventually consume everything else and then we’d be right back where we started.
Unless you intend to abolish FPTP, arguing your intention to vote third party is mathematically the same as arguing your intention to vote for the 2 party candidate who is least like you.
You do know a vote is worth more than just the tally it adds to your candidate right? A vote not changing the result of an election is not the same as not having an effect on politics.
No, it literally is the tally. Under FPTP it is entirely just the tally.
This math has been explained endlessly, trying to escape the proven math doesn’t make you some believer in higher ideals and callings, it makes you complicit in the destruction of the republic.
Well claiming proven math just isnt the slam dunk you think it is unfortunately. But you are allowed your perspective, I just disagree with it.
The math doesn’t care about your traitor perspective.
Defend the republic or be counted with the fascists who destroyed it.
How many people do you think who you’ve called a traitor are actually going to agree with your position for it? Its eerie how similar that rhetoric is to the republicans right now.