As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.

I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.

Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.

Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.

  • rocci@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    16 hours ago

    In my situation, I’m in a solid blue state so I’m voting for a third party to push the country to the left.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      15 hours ago

      So playing the first round of Russian Roulette for no real benefit.

      Congrats I guess.

      • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Or literally any voting system with more than two seconds thought put into it

        • eldavi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 hours ago

          they put a lot of thought into our system; the electoral college was intentional and it’s doing it’s job very well.

          it’s meant as a firewall to guard against poor people from getting sufficient political representation. our ruling class uses it today to keep this country conservative.

    • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      16 hours ago

      This kinda makes sense, I guess that means not a swing state (I’m not American).

      Do you have to be in a heavy blue state to do this without fear that if enough people do this it will swing red?

      • rocci@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Yeah it’s a strategy that would work in any heavy red or blue state, because there’s an absolute zero percent chance the dems lose my state.

      • KammicRelief@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Yes, exactly. If you live in a solid blue or red state, your vote is a drop in the bucket, so it won’t matter if you vote third party. But in swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania… in 2016, the number of votes won by Jill Stein was slightly greater than the difference between Trump/Clinton. Ouch! Was it worth it? Did it move the country left?

        • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          14 hours ago

          The country did move left under Trump and has moved right under Biden. While your logic on Stein’s influence is flawed, if your goal was to shift the population left you’re basically making an argument for voting for Trump in swing states.

          • azulavoir@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            While it sometimes feels like this, it’s because the vocal minorities on the side not associated with the current president are always the loudest political figures.

        • eldavi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          the strategy definitely wasn’t worth it, but we’re doing it again anyways.