That’s fun fairy time, but it isn’t reality. You need to research how game theory, and the availability (or lack) of true choice works.
You are literally at the precipice of “do I like the giant douche, or the turd sandwich”. You cannot have anything else.
Edit in some cases (location dependant) chosing a third means you implicitly choose the distant other
I.e. if the third is closer to Biden than trump (even if very different, it’s all about proximity), then you helped trump.
Another flavor: if your district is highly contested, and a trump win is close, a vote for anyone but Biden is a vote FOR trump. You are feeding the uncertainty of contest.
if game theory dictated human behavior, and if you are right about the options and outcomes, then no one would vote third party. so either you’re wrong about the options and outcomes, or game theory doesn’t dictate human behavior
In many countries, third parties are very viable. In this particular election, in the US, they are not.
Game theory happens to humans weather they acknowledge it or not. What you are experiencing is the illusion of choice in an outcome constrained system.
if all you can see is the winner of the presidency in 2024, you have a miopic view. there are many possible outcomes and many possible futures, and who wins the election in november is inconsequential to almost all of it.
Are you discussing post election? I’ve commented on this in this thread. Leftists and progressives have work to do, today, and beyond the election to build a viable candidate.
You are moving the goalposts by discussing the ever after, because nothing I’ve said to you means anything beyond the next vote. All m discussing is the next vote. Pretty shitty behavior to try to shift things like that.
All m discussing is the next vote. Pretty shitty behavior to try to shift things like that.
i think it’s shitty to try to browbeat people into voting for immoral candidates. or to narrow the scope of the discussion to only one facet and ignore all the other outcomes and impacts.
i’m going to be voting for cornel west or jill stein (or de la cruz if someone can convince me). but i won’t be voting for fascists.
And depending on your county/state, your vote will do nothing, or help trump. Enjoy.
my vote will add one to the vote total of the candidate for whom i vote. unless that person is trump (it won’t be), then i am voting against trump.
That’s fun fairy time, but it isn’t reality. You need to research how game theory, and the availability (or lack) of true choice works.
You are literally at the precipice of “do I like the giant douche, or the turd sandwich”. You cannot have anything else.
Edit in some cases (location dependant) chosing a third means you implicitly choose the distant other
I.e. if the third is closer to Biden than trump (even if very different, it’s all about proximity), then you helped trump.
Another flavor: if your district is highly contested, and a trump win is close, a vote for anyone but Biden is a vote FOR trump. You are feeding the uncertainty of contest.
wrong. only a vote for trump helps trump
Literally uneducated response.
I described the situation earlier with you.
If your third party vote is closer to Biden than trump, you just spoiled Biden, thus aiding trump.
This is so simple
you’re literally lying about how votes are counted
I’ve made quite clear that location matters. I’ve been consistent on that.
it’s simple to lie
Prove me wrong, shame me. Display any example of a constrained 2 outcome system where non participation results in non 4 variant outcome.
Help Biden hurt Biden Help trump hurt trump.
society is not a constrained 2 outcome system. your entire premise is wrong.
repeating this is starting to feel like i’m being trolled
this is election misinformation. only a vote for trump is a vote for trump
You’ll need to defend that. It’s not supported empirically or theoretically.
That is the shortest vision you could possibly have. True crabs in a bucket brain.
you’re spreading election misinformation. a vote for cornel west cannot be counted as a vote for trump.
Dude, they fully explained it to you, how are you still not getting it?
they’re fully explaining a mistruth.
game theory does not actually describe how people do or should act. it is an academic exercise that you should leave to the academy
My dude you are living it. This is the most present and surface example of game theory existing out of academia
if game theory dictated human behavior, and if you are right about the options and outcomes, then no one would vote third party. so either you’re wrong about the options and outcomes, or game theory doesn’t dictate human behavior
In many countries, third parties are very viable. In this particular election, in the US, they are not.
Game theory happens to humans weather they acknowledge it or not. What you are experiencing is the illusion of choice in an outcome constrained system.
there is no point in bickering about this. go read the wikipedia article and argue with the editors there.
i will not do something immoral like vote for biden or trump.
I’m ready to keep helping you with this:
Whatever you do, you are influencing the success of Biden or trump. There is nothing else.
if all you can see is the winner of the presidency in 2024, you have a miopic view. there are many possible outcomes and many possible futures, and who wins the election in november is inconsequential to almost all of it.
Are you discussing post election? I’ve commented on this in this thread. Leftists and progressives have work to do, today, and beyond the election to build a viable candidate.
You are moving the goalposts by discussing the ever after, because nothing I’ve said to you means anything beyond the next vote. All m discussing is the next vote. Pretty shitty behavior to try to shift things like that.
i think it’s shitty to try to browbeat people into voting for immoral candidates. or to narrow the scope of the discussion to only one facet and ignore all the other outcomes and impacts.