No Stupid Questions

Because they are poorly educated americans maybe

1. Due to the failings of the electoral college system, my state was almost guarenteed to vote the same way as it has for the last 30 years
2. I did not strongly agree with either party/candidate
3. I dispise the current two party system that both major parties are incentivized to maintain
4. Voting for a third party who is incentivised to push for change via ranked voting and other methods does aid them even if they don't win

If my state was likely to be contested, I may have voted differently. Voting for a third party in my case however had a greater impact than fighting or joining the tide of my state

I think some people have explained it decently, but as someone who did not vote for Harris, I have a simple explanation:

I do not want the Democratic party to think it's Ok to be slightly better than Trump.

If I'm going to be honest, trans rights and immigration are minor issues compared to inequality and war in Gaza.

The Dems can be better, but they choose not to. Me voting for Dems signals that what Dems are doing is acceptable, but it's not. I supported third party in 2024, and I will continue to do so until the Democrats get serious reform.

(For those who think it would be "less bad" with Harris, that's the problem. I don't care for "less bad" when the duopoly got us here regardless. Represent the people.)

Consider how you'd go about exploiting the opposite case.

If people will always vote for the slightly-less-worse candidate, then you only ever have to be slightly-less-worse than the opposition. You can sleaze right up to them and be almost as corrupt and evil as they are, so long as there's just a little bit of extra sleaze sticking out that you can point to as the worse alternative. And you can farm the shit out of that, because then the other side never has to improve either - it's an anti-competitive duopoly, where they both agree to only compete over surface details, not their overall horribleness, leaving them free to sleaze right up to the fucking-monster end of the spectrum.

Presumably a percentage of people refused to enable that behaviour, and said that slightly-less-genocide is a bridge too fucking far.

They made it plain from the outset that if the dems wanted to play chicken on this, the dems would lose. That they were not to big to fail, that daddy wouldn't bail them out this time; put down the bombs or you're getting kicked out for real.

The morally-correct choice would have been for the dems to stop supporting genocide, especially with so much at stake.

There's this huge narrative that's been consistently pushed that the actions of politicians are beyond accountability, sent down from on high like acts of god, and that moral responsibility lies only with the voters; that it's meaningless even imagine any obligation for the ruling class to try and be good enough to vote for.

You know, the way the fossil fuel lobby found ways to shift the blame onto the consumer instead of themselves. The way the opioid manufacturers did the same. The way the gun manufacturers did the same. The way plastic manufacturers did the same fucking thing as well. We'll act however we fucking well want to, and if you don't like it, that's literally your problem.

Oh no, you can't hold us accountable now, it's the worst possible time. It's too soon to have this conversation, how can you be so insensitive, can't you see there's a highschool full of dead kids?

Somewhere, sometime, people have to say enough. And they did.

It starts with fury. Everything is beyond messed up over there.

Add in: anger funnels focus. Tunnel vision. It almost feels morally wrong to think of another thing. Anger helps you in a physical fight, so this makes sense. Also, ordering lunch while your neighbor's house burns down is kinda dickish.

Add in: first past the post voting. This is the big clincher. It forces two party systems mathematically, and most people understandably haven't heard why.

Factoring in the information in that video, you realize your choice really is Harris or Trump. Third choices get transformed into a vote for the candidate you dislike the most. So you take the best option.

Take away the knowledge of first past the post, and you have every reason to think that third parties will work if you all just had some spine and imagination, god damnit. You resolve not to let yourself be one of the ones who sat by silently while horrible things happen!

Cast protest vote thinking it makes you one of the people who actually helped, not realizing first past the post transforms that vote into a vote for trump, and everybody keeps fighting instead of watching that video and letting the facts it points out inform what they do.

Late but here’s my model of the situation. Sort of a WIP and very new but a /gen effortpost, so I welcome thoughts:

It’s individualism versus collectivism. The collectivist understands intimately the function of working together for the protection and future of the group. There is no doubt in her mind about the practical nature of her actions because she can see them play out in her community. The individualist, by contrast, operates solo; everything for him is about your vote, your candidate. This leads to a divide between the individualist and the material outcomes of his actions. This gap—this absence of practicality, we might call it—leaves a vacuum where symbolism can enter. This becomes a problem not when symbolism is simply encountered by the individualist, but when the symbol becomes the act, when the vote becomes a kind of personal expression, and any thought for collective consequences falls by the wayside.

“Ordinarily,” if we imagine such a thing exists, these two identities intermix and act in a complex and altogether non-problematic way; I don’t wish to imply that individualism is simply “bad” while collective action is “good.” For example, concepts of individualism are fundamental to advancing human rights to consent and bodily autonomy.

However, the setting and background of your question is the USA, a country with deep, deep historical ties to white supremacist, capitalist, colonialist, even fascist values, all of which hold the individual as intrinsic over the collective. The result is that hyperindividualism is catastrophically rooted in the heart of U.S. society—even in progressive and leftist spaces!

So, when you see a pro-Palestinian proclaim abstention or that they voted third party, you are witnessing the complex outcome of genuine compassion intermingled with the values instilled by white supremacy and individualism. And so you hear the phrase, “I just can’t in good conscience vote for XYZ.” To degrees varying between people, the vote loses its material value and becomes nothing more than a symbolic moral statement.

This doesn’t mean the leftist non-voter is a white supremacist, of course! Rather, it’s that they have been deeply affected by the presence of those values in their cultural context and have not yet had the opportunity or experience with group frameworks to question their assumptions and reassert the significant importance of collectivism.

So, in conclusion, the unnuanced TLDR is “because America is a racist capitalist hellhole.” The good news I conclude from this, though, is that collectivism can be learned and promoted. Cultural values are definitely not static, and perhaps with education, support, and time, mindsets among leftists can be shifted to better support the whole of the community.

Trump is no worse on Gaza than Harris/Biden. Biden/Harris have not really done anything to stop the war and instead keep letting Israel getting away with it, then encouraging it by giving them more money. Trump and Kamala are basically the same on Israel

However at least Democrats voice support for Gaza, as long as they are not in power (executive branch) at least someone will be fighting for Gaza.

In other words, a Democrat house will posture alot and slow down Israeli aid and try to push for more concessions. A Democrat executive and legislative branch will continue steamrolling without resistance

Maybe if they are young. Its comes up again and again. I voted for ross perot but was lucky it did not effect the election. I mean just the 50 cent gas tax would have been great for the environment given it would have gone into effect in the 90's as a federal tax. Electronic direct democracy. Increase in education and infrastructure. It was hard not to like his proposals.

• An overly simplistic/naive view of the world. (Not sure what they expect here? Stopping weapons and technology transfer? Maybe the US going to war with Israel to stop the Gaza atrocities? Or are they just expecting something symbolic? If Harris publicly denounced Israel's actions, would that be enough?)
• Thinking that the US President has more power than they do in reality (Congress and the Courts, checks and balances)
• Some logical fallacies they've convinced themselves into believing. False Dilemma Fallacy maybe? https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies

Only a Sith deals in absolutes