A group holds a vote to either cross a bridge to side A or stay on side B. Staying on side A means you won’t have much food. Going to side B means you still won’t have much food, but also most of the food is poisonous.
Part of the group says “I don’t want to starve, I refuse to vote in a way that accepts malnourishment as a solution!” Group C also opposes eating poisonous food. This partial group votes to try and find a better source of food (option C).
48% of people vote A. 49% of people vote B. 3% of people vote C.
Surprise, surprise, Group C had 0 impact on the starving situation AND helped facilitate the eating of poisonous food.
I agree with you. If we could get the entirety of the democratic party to vote green/left, that would be super helpful. We both know that’s not happening in America because of the broken electoral and political system. If we could suppress option C, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all, but there would surely be other complaints to be had regarding that matter.
In the end, the Group C votes are equivalent to not voting, which translates to having 0 impact on the outcome of vote. This exemplifies complicity with either option A or B.
Sorry, you’re right. My story doesn’t quite match the election dynamic. In the hypothetical, Group C should be extremely aware that they cannot win the popular vote, since most tribe members are either unaware of or have no faith in option C.
In which case, yes, continuing to vote for option C is complicity with outcome A or B.
Not voting is a vote for Trump.
That’s not logical. So, if my choices are pizza or nuggies, and I choose neither. Then I chose nuggies? Make it make sense.
I may be intermittent fasting to lose weight, or rejecting imperialist capitalism.
A group holds a vote to either cross a bridge to side A or stay on side B. Staying on side A means you won’t have much food. Going to side B means you still won’t have much food, but also most of the food is poisonous.
Part of the group says “I don’t want to starve, I refuse to vote in a way that accepts malnourishment as a solution!” Group C also opposes eating poisonous food. This partial group votes to try and find a better source of food (option C).
48% of people vote A. 49% of people vote B. 3% of people vote C.
Surprise, surprise, Group C had 0 impact on the starving situation AND helped facilitate the eating of poisonous food.
Seems like more from the other Groups should have voted with C, or C shouldn’t have been given the option to find a better source for food.
I agree with you. If we could get the entirety of the democratic party to vote green/left, that would be super helpful. We both know that’s not happening in America because of the broken electoral and political system. If we could suppress option C, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all, but there would surely be other complaints to be had regarding that matter.
In the end, the Group C votes are equivalent to not voting, which translates to having 0 impact on the outcome of vote. This exemplifies complicity with either option A or B.
Group C is not complicit for being honest.
Sorry, you’re right. My story doesn’t quite match the election dynamic. In the hypothetical, Group C should be extremely aware that they cannot win the popular vote, since most tribe members are either unaware of or have no faith in option C.
In which case, yes, continuing to vote for option C is complicity with outcome A or B.