Prove it.
To denounce a candidate is to say that you shouldn’t vote for them. To vote for a candidate who you say doesn't deserve a vote is self-contradiction.
Define “tactically correct”.
A tactically correct action is an action that best furthers your goals.
Under FPTP, one can absolutely use their vote to denounce a candidate and vote against them taking office.
Only by contradicting yourself. To denounce a candidate is to say that you shouldn't vote for them.
Do you need me to link that for you?
None of those things are the same as concluding that voting for Kamala is tactically correct, which I have repeatedly explained to you and been completely consistent on. That you think I should conclude that is not the same as me concluding it. To say that that's what I concluded and that I already conceded the point when I've plainly told you otherwise is a blatant lie. You will retract that claim or this conversation is over, I will not continue with someone who lies about what I said.
Then prove that voting is objectively and endorsement of a candidate/party. That’s your claim.
That's just definitionally what those words mean. To say "This candidate is the best choice, I'm voting for them and others should to" is an endorsement, and to say "I endorse this candidate" means, "This candidate is the best choice, I'm voting for them and others should too." I suppose you could argue they're technically different if you lie about how you're voting or don't tell anyone about it.
For the second, you already agreed previously that it is tactically the best move.
Blatant lie. I have consistently disagreed with that at every single point of this conversation.
Obvious, a vote is an endorsement, yes. Whether MAGA does or Liberals don't, I don't know anything about that and don't particularly care.
But even if you want to treat it as a chess move, it's a bad one. It's tactically wrong as well as ethically.
splitting hairs on my choice of words
If I don't keep y'all honest on terminology, you'll say all kinds of ridiculous nonsense to make my side look bad, whether it's "stealing votes" or "helping the other side."
It’s just a coincidence that in 1908 it was 6.4m vs 7.7m votes (dems and republicans respectively) and in 1912 it was 6.3m vs 3.5m + 4.1m (Dems vs republicans and progressives respectively)
And in 1916, when there were only two major candidates, it was 9.1m democrat vs 8.5m republican.
more concerned
I agree that they are more concerned about the center-right (mostly because the center-right is more prone to defecting while the left just falls in line), but that does not mean that they are not at all concerned about losing the left, or that a change in strategy couldn't make them concerned about that.
There it is. You don’t care any of the work that has to happen over the next 4 years to push for positive change. You just care about virtue-signaling.
How does not being an act utilitarian mean that I just care about virtue-signaling? Do you know what act utilitarianism is? Do you think it has something to do with taking actions vs not taking actions?
Act utilitarianism is an ethical framework that is based around judging specific acts to determine which action produces the most utility, in contrast to rule utilitarianism, which is about judging which general rules tend to produce the most utility.
I agree, it’s extremely obvious. I’m not arguing against it. I’m arguing against your claim that voting 3rd party puts any meaningful pressure on Democrats.
It's not "outlandish" at all. You can't agree that it's "extremely obvious" that democrats care about gaining or losing votes in one case and that it's "outlandish" in another, it's completely arbitrary.
Because it’s obvious. The outlandish claim is that throwing away your vote is better than using it to avoid the worse outcome.
I don't consider that obvious at all. First off, I dispute the claim that voting third party is "throwing your vote away," because I've already established the effects it can have regardless of not winning. But I also assert that it's better to throw away your vote than to support someone who is fundamentally unacceptable.
I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser evilism, or to act utilitarianism. It is not ethical to kill a healthy person to get the organs necessary to save five people. It is not ethical to murder someone because someone threatens to murder two people if you don't. Y'all act like your ethical framework is just "obvious," objectively true, and the only one that exists, but that's completely false, and it falls apart as indefensible under scrutiny.
In addition, it's just a bad negotiation tactic.
Exactly – I agree that the two are unrelated, so I’m not sure why you used it to support your claim.
You're the one who brought up the question of whether democrats are concerned about me voting Republican. The point is that they are concerned about the possibility of gaining or losing voters, which honestly isn't a point I should even have to argue for, because it's obvious.
Choosing to use your vote to prevent the worse of the only two possible outcomes from happening is a better choice than throwing it away.
I disagree, you haven't established this. Since neither option is acceptable, it is not correct to accept either.
Correct. What they are not concerned about is far-Leftists somehow becoming Republicans. Which is why your game of pressuring them by voting 3rd party in a federal election is ridiculous.
That doesn't follow at all. Just because they're not concerned about leftists becoming republicans, that in no way shows that they're not concerned about leftists voting third party.
It doesn’t matter if your analogy is analogous? Gee, that explains a lot.
I don't think you understand how analogies work. An analogy doesn't have to reflect every aspect of reality. It only has to be comparable as far as it's relevant to the specific point that it's attempting to establish or explain. The specific point of the analogy is that one option being better than another does not mean that either option is worth considering. That's not specifically about the election, it's a general point.
All analogies deviate from reality in some way, that's what an analogy is. The question is whether it deviates in a way that's relevant to the specific point being discussed. I only made the analogy to establish that specific point, and not as a more general reflection of the election, as you're trying to take it.
you are stuck with one of those “unacceptable” options no matter what.
There's a difference between there being two possible winners and there being two possible choices. Just because Trump and Harris are the only ones likely to be elected doesn't mean I have to vote for either of them. We've been over this, I feel like.
“The Democrats are all about this hardcore Republican as a means of capturing the Leftist vote”
They are trying to appeal to right-leaning democrats and centrists who might consider voting republican. What I mean is that they are concerned about the possibility of their voters changing sides, not Leftists specifically.
Yes I agree, your burning house analogy isn’t actually applicable to the scenario at hand
Whether it is directly applicable or not isn't important, and if you're trying to take it that way, I guess that explains your absurd takes on it. The purpose of the analogy is to demonstrate that one thing can be marginally less bad than another, but both options still fundamentally unacceptable and not worthy of consideration. "Would you rather burn to death in these flames or those flames," "Would you rather eat a bowl of rusty nails or a bowl of arsenic," whatever, I could give you an answer if you really push me, but if you can't take my answer and serve me one and expect me to accept it. Because the real answer is that both are fundamentally unacceptable, so which one is preferable doesn't really matter.
And lost. Because the electorate was shifting between 1908 and 1916, so there's no reason to think that the results of 1912 would've been the same as 1908.