Ballot Box Incoherence

[Bill Cipher]

There are plenty of incoherencies about how voting is handled, including winner-take-all in which a candidate with a mere plurality falsely appears to have majority support.

But there is one in particular that I want to address now:  the specious proposition that failing to vote for Trump is ipso facto a vote for Clinton (or whomever).  The claim typically goes:  you better vote for Trump because if you don't then you're voting for Clinton (with the further implication that anything you say is illegitimate so you'd better STFU or find another forum to post on).  Stripped to essentials the claim is that refusing to vote for Trump is the equivalent of voting for Clinton.

But, since generally speaking no #NeverTrump is going to vote for Clinton, the Clinton camp has just as much right to claim that if I refuse to vote for Clinton, then I am voting for Trump. 

All of which leads to the logically impossible conclusion that if I either vote third party or write-in, or don't vote at all, then I am really voting for both Trump and for Clinton (and, in fact, for anyone else on the ballot whom I actually did not vote for).  That is logically incoherent.  Or perhaps the Justice Department should be investigating me for election fraud since it seems I am casting more than one ballot in the same election.

When stated clearly, the falsity of the claim becomes clear.  That means that I cannot be charged with voting for Clinton simply because I didn't vote for Trump.  Which means in turn that I am not to blame if Trump loses to Clinton. 

The blame would lie with Trump and those whose actions gave Trump the nomination because they are the ones whose actual actions, not some nebulous imputed actions, failed to win the election for Trump.  First and foremost blame would lie with Trump for failing to persuade enough people to vote for him.  Second blame would lie with his supporters who, likewise, failed to persuade enough of their fellow voters to vote for Trump.  Third, blame would lie with the primary voters who gave Trump the nomination in the first place, knowing full well that he would most likely not be able to beat Clinton.  The only people on this side of the line who would not bear blame would be #NeverTrump and the others who chose to not vote for Trump. 

[r9etb]

The blame would lie with Trump and those whose actions gave Trump the nomination because they are the ones whose actual actions, not some nebulous imputed actions, failed to win the election for Trump.

So basically you're saying that your decisions (or lack thereof) have no consequence whatever. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I don't try to convince anybody to vote one way or the other. In the past I have tried, and received considerable pushback and it often has the opposite effect: people just double down on their beliefs. I have since come to the conclusion that who you vote for is your own damn business and nobody else's, and your reasons for doing so are your own as well.

I have found that good, knowledgable people often arrive to the correct decisions on their own, without any prodding. And if they want to ask me, I will tell them my beliefs.

[montanajoe]

With all due respect I wish conservatives would stop with the blame game. It's something the libs, being perpetual victims, engage in but personally I wish conservatives would lose the habit.

Whatever happened to I voted my conscience, and I hope you do the same.

Does any thinking person really think they can blame or shame anybody into voting a particular way?

[Bill Cipher]

So basically you're saying that your decisions (or lack thereof) have no consequence whatever. 

I'm saying that opportunity cost analysis does not apply and that you cannot hold me responsible for all the might-have-beens.  The only way I can be held responsible for Clinton's election is if I in fact vote for Clinton.  Otherwise, I would always be to blame for voting for as many people as were listed on the ballot, which is incoherent and illogical. 

Consequences lie for what you actually do, and in this case blame for a Clinton election will ultimately lie with those people who acted by choosing Trump as the nominee.

If you want to see whom you can point the finger at for Clinton's election, start by looking in the mirror.

[EC]

I have since come to the conclusion that who you vote for is your own damn business and nobody else's, and your reasons for doing so are your own as well.

I tend to think the same. Voting booths are single occupancy for a reason. 

[r9etb]

I'm saying that opportunity cost analysis does not apply and that you cannot hold me responsible for all the might-have-beens.  The only way I can be held responsible for Clinton's election is if I in fact vote for Clinton.  Otherwise, I would always be to blame for voting for as many people as were listed on the ballot, which is incoherent and illogical. 

What's incoherent is your position: you're just trying to justify yourself in a "don't blame me" sort of way.  You're either not voting or voting 3rd party -- either of which has no bearing on the main contest.  (Which looks to be between two of the most horrible candidates ever.)

Consequences lie for what you actually do,

As if not doing something doesn't also have consequences.... again, you're just trying to shift blame.

and in this case blame for a Clinton election will ultimately lie with those people who acted by choosing Trump as the nominee. 
If you want to see whom you can point the finger at for Clinton's election, start by looking in the mirror.

Except I'm not a Trump supporter, and as such had no say in his being the presumptive nominee.

So what's your bottom line, Bill ... the real election looks to be between Trump and Clinton (your "don't blame me" notwithstanding).  Who would you least like to see in the White House?

[jmyrlefuller]

So what's your bottom line, Bill ... the real election looks to be between Trump and Clinton (your "don't blame me" notwithstanding).  Who would you least like to see in the White House?

I don't want to see either one. Do I not have a say?

[r9etb]

I don't want to see either one. Do I not have a say?

Nor do I want to see either one, but that's not the issue.  As it stands now, one of those two will be the next president.  Surely you have an opinion as to which one will do the least damage?

FWIW, I think Trump would do somewhat less damage because he'd be effectively neutralized by Congress, the media, and by his own mouth, and (not unlikely) ultimately by impeachment. 

Which doesn't necessarily mean I'd vote for him.  I'm still trying to figure out how in hell I can justify any vote I end up casting.

[jmyrlefuller]

Nor do I want to see either one, but that's not the issue.  As it stands now, one of those two will be the next president.  Surely you have an opinion as to which one will do the least damage?

FWIW, I think Trump would do somewhat less damage because he'd be effectively neutralized by Congress, the media, and by his own mouth, and (not unlikely) ultimately by impeachment. 

Which doesn't necessarily mean I'd vote for him.  I'm still trying to figure out how in hell I can justify any vote I end up casting.

No. Neither one would do less damage than the other. I firmly believe that.

This is not a choice between a marginally tolerable candidate and a bad candidate. That was 2008 and 2012. This is a whole different election: two despicable, detestable, fully unfit candidates, and you're forcing upon me the false dilemma that out of several candidates, I am going to be forced to choose between those two.

[HootOwl]

With all due respect I wish conservatives would stop with the blame game. It's something the libs, being perpetual victims, engage in but personally I wish conservatives would lose the habit.

Whatever happened to I voted my conscience, and I hope you do the same.

Does any thinking person really think they can blame or shame anybody into voting a particular way?

Trump did.  He should have also attacked DEMs for Super-delegates too, but he wanted to hurt cruz  and shame weak conservatives into voting for him--and it worked to give him a solid win in the liberal east--all down hill from then