The Uncommitted movement announced it wouldn’t be endorsing Kamala Harris for president over her failure to push for a new U.S. policy on the Gaza war.
Voting for Harris is voting for Harris.
Voting for Trump is voting for Trump.
Voting third party is voting for Trump.
Not voting is voting for Trump.
Eating spaghetti is voting for Trump.
Why won’t you just vote blue!?
Let’s pretend you have 2 people that decide to not vote for candidate A or candidate B.
If candidate A has 50 votes and bad polices for Gaza, and candidate B has 51 votes and even worse policies for Gaza, then by sitting out, those two people have effectively allowed the worse option to win.
What people mean when thwy say those things is: voting for anyone except Harris increases Trump’s chances of winning compared to a Harris vote. This is trivially true.
Voting for Harris is voting for Harris. Voting for Trump is voting for Trump. Voting third party is voting for Trump. Not voting is voting for Trump. Eating spaghetti is voting for Trump. Why won’t you just vote blue!?
Jesus, another one who doesn’t know how to track cause and effect. There sure are a lot of you lil guys, hey! Like Tribbles, but not as cute.
Really shows that people weren’t paying attention in Civics class. Zero clue how FPTP and the spoiler effect work.
Okay.
Let’s pretend you have 2 people that decide to not vote for candidate A or candidate B.
If candidate A has 50 votes and bad polices for Gaza, and candidate B has 51 votes and even worse policies for Gaza, then by sitting out, those two people have effectively allowed the worse option to win.
It’s just basic arithmetic.
What people mean when thwy say those things is: voting for anyone except Harris increases Trump’s chances of winning compared to a Harris vote. This is trivially true.