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 😊.

Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.

  • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months 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?

    • KammicRelief@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months 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?

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

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

      • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        2 months 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
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months 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.

          • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            No, it is because liberals were agitated under Trump and were told to care about women, black people, abortion rights, etc, and mobilize to spaces where they could be recruited for political education. Under Biden, they feel a sense of normalcy and have returned to supporting the equally violent status quo.

    • rocci@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months 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.