Point A. Mathematically, the third party voters did not cost you the election. Not in terms of the raw popular vote comparison, not in terms of the electoral college vote comparison.
Point B. No candidate is owed your vote. A “third party” candidate must be judged on the same merits as a “first”/“second” party candidate. The first and second party candidates are both complicit in genocide and/or genocidal incitement. They are literally war criminals. The only argument you can make for the preference of the first/second party candidates is not based on merit, but popularity alone. It’s circular logic to justify a population voting for a candidate on the basis of popularity - “we must vote for them because we’re voting for them”. This only appears to make sense when viewed in terms of an individual choice, but the logic completely breaks down when viewed in terms of group behavior. I cannot stress enough that this is an absolutely basic question in terms of civic engagement in a so-called “representative democracy”, and yet a staggering amount of you have not even thought about it.
Start from scratch on the logic. What is the ENTIRE framework we’re using to select candidates, as a population? When compared against other frameworks, how do we evaluate which framework is ideal, based on its long-term consequences for a society? If you have not already thoroughly answered this question for yourself, you are not qualified for this discussion in the first place.
A) The third party voters convinced a lot of people not to vote.
B) You owe it to yourself to vote for the better option. All that over complication you’re doing is meaningless. Third parties can’t win. In reality the choice was Trump or not-Trump.
Point A. Mathematically, the third party voters did not cost you the election. Not in terms of the raw popular vote comparison, not in terms of the electoral college vote comparison.
Point B. No candidate is owed your vote. A “third party” candidate must be judged on the same merits as a “first”/“second” party candidate. The first and second party candidates are both complicit in genocide and/or genocidal incitement. They are literally war criminals. The only argument you can make for the preference of the first/second party candidates is not based on merit, but popularity alone. It’s circular logic to justify a population voting for a candidate on the basis of popularity - “we must vote for them because we’re voting for them”. This only appears to make sense when viewed in terms of an individual choice, but the logic completely breaks down when viewed in terms of group behavior. I cannot stress enough that this is an absolutely basic question in terms of civic engagement in a so-called “representative democracy”, and yet a staggering amount of you have not even thought about it.
Start from scratch on the logic. What is the ENTIRE framework we’re using to select candidates, as a population? When compared against other frameworks, how do we evaluate which framework is ideal, based on its long-term consequences for a society? If you have not already thoroughly answered this question for yourself, you are not qualified for this discussion in the first place.
A) The third party voters convinced a lot of people not to vote.
B) You owe it to yourself to vote for the better option. All that over complication you’re doing is meaningless. Third parties can’t win. In reality the choice was Trump or not-Trump.