• MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s amazing the way all these silly vote rationales collapse the moment you apply the logic from the other side or even just follow the logic beyond the exact rhetorical cul-de-sac they’ve convinced themselves is the whole world.

    Not voting for a candidate just tells them they won’t ever get your vote, so why bother changing.

    So what does voting for them unconditionally do?

    It… umm… well… ensures they rely our your vote instead of going to the right. Which gives you power… somehow

    Power I can use by threatening to withhold my vote?

    No, because then they know you’re not reliable and can and will ignore you.

    So my choice is to vote against my interests and morals and be ignored, while supporting a monster. Or not do that, be ignored, and focus on something else.

    Uhm no. I mean yes. But no because something something Trump, something something you can’t come to my dinner party

    • SoyViking [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think the rationale is something like:

      If the democrats/Labour/the SPD etc. (ie. the lib blob party) gets few votes they will be afraid and move right to claw back those votes.

      If the lib blob party gets many votes they feel safe to do the good things they really want to do.

      If the lib blob party does bad things it is evidence that they didn’t get enough votes and you have to vote for them. Anything bad the lib blob does is the voters’ fault.