OK, if you want to look at it that way, it’s still the same basic argument, refusing to participate in the party just effectively increases the representation of the people you disagree with.

Consider two scenarios: one where you vote, one where you do not, all else is the same. In the scenario where you vote, the candidate that you vote for, that you least disagree with, has a higher percentage of votes than in the other scenario. In the scenario where you don’t vote the candidates that you wouldn’t have voted for, the ones you most disagree with, have a higher percentage of votes than in the other scenario.

Not voting is effectively voting for the people you most disagree with.

democrats win this upcoming election, does this mean all the people who didn’t vote had actually voted democrats?

That’s a different argument than what I was making. “Not voting is effectively approval of whoever wins.” related but not the same.

Do your own personal Instant Runoff. If you think that the third party candidate might win maybe vote for them. If they are basically guaranteed to lose, maybe vote for your next choice.

No self respecting leftist would be a member of the democratic party.

That is such a stupid mindset. In many states you have to be a member of the party to vote in their primary. If you are not voting in any primary then you are letting people that you disagree with decide who will be in the candidate in the election. And considering that not voting is effectively voting for the candidate that you most disagree with, all the leftists that refuse to associate with the democratic party are effectively voting for the people they disagree with.

So not this, but other things?

Has there ever been someone that this has happened to twice?

Three mirrors. A tri-fold mirror works great.

The secret service exists to prevent counterfeiting US money, as a side job they also protect a few people in government.

They are both owned by Fox Corporation.

Its assets include the Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Television Stations, Fox News, Fox Business, Fox Sports, Tubi, and others.

We’ve known that birds were descended from dinosaurs for a long time. Best I can tell, it was first proposed in the 1800’s, largely abandoned by the early 1900’s and then revived in the 1970’s. It was not new information about the lineage of birds that caused us to start saying ‘birds are dinosaurs’, but a different method of classification: Cladistics.

We had known that birds are descended from dinosaurs well before the general public and the majority of paleontologists starting saying “birds are dinosaurs”. So simply saying that “we discovered that birds are descended from dinosaurs” is not sufficient to answering your question.

Traditional taxonomy allows for paraphyletic groups, meaning that not all of the descendants of the most recent common ancestor of the group are required to be in that group. So in this case, even though it was known that birds are descended from dinosaurs, they continued to be considered two separate groups, with dinosaurs being a paraphyletic group. Birds were known first, dinosaurs were later discovered and were considered a distinct group, then the link between the the two groups was discovered, but how they were grouped did not immediately change. That birds were not considered to be dinosaurs was a rather arbitrary effect based on how they were discovered and not on any scientific basis.

One book on dinosaurs from 1997 wrote:

In a phylogenetic sense, dinosaurs are not extinct, for birds are theropodan descendants (but see Feduccia 1996 for a dissenting view). For the purposes of this review, however, the term dinosaur connotes what cladists might term “non-avian dinosauromorph.” We thus (unrepentantly) use a paraphyletic rather than monophyletic (holophyletic) “Dinosauria.” Whatever the scientific merits of the latter, the former is widely understood, and avoids such circumlocutions as “non-avian dinosaur.”

A later edition of that same book from 2012 not only uses “non-avian dinosaur” extensively, it also has an entire section on birds.

So why the change? There is a trend in science to prefer cladistic classification, which requires every group to be a clade, meaning that all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of a group are in the group. This effectively means that paraphyletic grouping is being abandoned. So with cladistic taxonomy birds are dinosaurs.

There are other traditionally paraphyletic groups that are still in the process of changing. For example traditionally monkeys were a paraphyletic group, but any clade that includes all monkeys necessarily includes the apes, so in cladistics apes are monkeys. Though, you will still hear many people say ‘apes are not monkeys’. Fish was also a paraphyletic group, which included all vertebrates except tetrapods, but of course in cladistics, tetrapods are fish.

That’s not the ingredient list, the list is to the left, and that’s not a version number, it’s a reference to a food category system.

12.6.1 Emulsified sauces and dips
Sauces, gravies, dressings based and dips, at least in part, on a fat- or oil-in water emulsion such as salad dressing (e.g. French, Italian, Greek, ranch style), fat-based sandwich spreads (e.g. mayonnaise with mustard), salad cream, and fatty sauces and snack dips (e.g. bacon and cheddar dip, onion dip).

Did you forget what the article is about? Those churches are likely getting kicked out.

The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n*****.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

This is the foundation of the current Republican party. There is nothing redeemable.

Or he expects there to be no vacancies, giving him the option to say whatever he thinks might get him votes without ever having to follow through on his promises.

The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n*****.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/