“The climate movement doesn’t have a persuasion problem as much as we have a turnout problem,” says Nathaniel Stinnett of the Environmental Voter Project.
Polls make it very clear that they both serve as spoilers in the general election. Every bit of support they have means that Trump is more likely to be elected.
Polls make it very clear that they both serve as spoilers in the general election
not for me. i haven’t voted for a democrat for president since 2008. i don’t believe you’ll find a single person who is voting for them who would have otherwise voted for biden or trump.
the narrative of spoilers assumes that the votes belong to one party and are stolen by the other. this is wrong. the votes belong to the voters and it is up to candidates to win them.
It’s reality though; their decision to be on the ballot (and yours to provide financial support) increases the odds of a Trump win.
Changing how elections are done could change that, but under the system we have, that’s what the impact of your actions is, no matter what you tell yourself.
i have a policy of voting only for candidates who i want to win. it’s not a team sport for me. its not placing a bet for me. it’s a matter of choosing the candidate i want to win.
I’m not looking at it as a team sport; I’m looking at “Of the candidates who can actually win, who would I rather be elected if my vote was the deciding vote?”
Deciding to vote for somebody who has too small a coalition to possibly be elected is a decision to make it easier for the candidate who could win, but whom I find the least attractive, to actually win.
Deciding to vote for somebody who has too small a coalition to possibly be elected is a decision to make it easier for the candidate who could win, but whom I find the least attractive, to actually win.
that’s one story, but it assumes a consequentialist ethic. a deontological ethic would dictate voting for the right person every time regardless of possible outcomes. in casting such a vote i’m voting against all the other candidates who i think should not win.
I’d hardly call that comic a middle finger. Just a succinct way of expressing my disagreement. But since you asked, here’s the empathetic version:
Please appreciate that you’re not the only disappointed idealist. Everyone wants things to be better and I genuinely understand the desire to only vote for what you can defend to yourself morally. However, that’s not the framework we have to work within. The realities of American politics require pragmatism that is incompatible with stubborn idealism.
My argument is that the deontological approach is unethical because it prioritizes how the voter feels about their vote over reducing total harm to the greatest number of people. Votes aren’t love letters and they aren’t prayers. To the extent that any of us as individuals have any influence on the mad, chaotic world that we all have to live in, consequences are more important than intentions.
Polls make it very clear that they both serve as spoilers in the general election. Every bit of support they have means that Trump is more likely to be elected.
not for me. i haven’t voted for a democrat for president since 2008. i don’t believe you’ll find a single person who is voting for them who would have otherwise voted for biden or trump.
the narrative of spoilers assumes that the votes belong to one party and are stolen by the other. this is wrong. the votes belong to the voters and it is up to candidates to win them.
It’s reality though; their decision to be on the ballot (and yours to provide financial support) increases the odds of a Trump win.
Changing how elections are done could change that, but under the system we have, that’s what the impact of your actions is, no matter what you tell yourself.
i have a policy of voting only for candidates who i want to win. it’s not a team sport for me. its not placing a bet for me. it’s a matter of choosing the candidate i want to win.
I’m not looking at it as a team sport; I’m looking at “Of the candidates who can actually win, who would I rather be elected if my vote was the deciding vote?”
Deciding to vote for somebody who has too small a coalition to possibly be elected is a decision to make it easier for the candidate who could win, but whom I find the least attractive, to actually win.
that’s one story, but it assumes a consequentialist ethic. a deontological ethic would dictate voting for the right person every time regardless of possible outcomes. in casting such a vote i’m voting against all the other candidates who i think should not win.
We have to live with the consequences, no matter out philosophical approaches. That’s why I care about outcomes.
justify your approach all you like, it doesn’t make it right.
Lol causing bad outcomes while lecturing about moral purity.
The ultimate in evil signaling
be constructive: there is no need of another internet space full of competition, negativity, rage etc.;
be empathic: empathy is more rebellious than a middle finger;
I’d hardly call that comic a middle finger. Just a succinct way of expressing my disagreement. But since you asked, here’s the empathetic version:
Please appreciate that you’re not the only disappointed idealist. Everyone wants things to be better and I genuinely understand the desire to only vote for what you can defend to yourself morally. However, that’s not the framework we have to work within. The realities of American politics require pragmatism that is incompatible with stubborn idealism. My argument is that the deontological approach is unethical because it prioritizes how the voter feels about their vote over reducing total harm to the greatest number of people. Votes aren’t love letters and they aren’t prayers. To the extent that any of us as individuals have any influence on the mad, chaotic world that we all have to live in, consequences are more important than intentions.