No. I don’t “must” do anything, and neither does any other voter.
You’re free to live in denial about the FPtP voting system, but if enough people do that we get Trump. The statement “In a FPtP voting system you must vote strategically. You must vote against the party you like least” is a hard truth that you’re not accepting. Kamala is the only candidate that could’ve beaten Trump. If you didn’t vote for Kamala, you contributed in a small way to Trump’s victory.
I hate FPtP. I want ranked choice or approval voting so people can vote their conscience. But I’m not naive. I vote in the electoral system I have, not the electoral system I want. So I will vote Dem and be proud knowing this is the best I can do as a voter.
You are the one living in a denial of the reality of voting, and your opinions about what you or I should do in regards to voting strategies are utterly irrelevant. And when you make it about my voting decisions, you’ve made it incredibly clear you either don’t understand the point or are intentionally avoiding having to deal with the primary point.
This isn’t an argument about what one voter does. This is an argument about what voters do, and that’s where this shit lib self-glazing fantasy breaks down. You keep living in a fantasy were these paper strategies don’t have to actually be applied in a real world. You make the claim of this “hard truth” but totally fail to address that your “hard truth” never manifests into reality. Instead of grapelling with the fact that voters don’t vote strategically, and that making this utterly naive argument actually works against your cause, you just keep insisting that your fantastic, self defeating strategy is the only way things can be. And instead of dealing with the fact that I’m talking about voters, and electoralism, you try to make the argument about what I individually choose to do with a vote, which is not what this conversation is about.
This faithless approach is self evident, and you are living in denial of reality. Reality is that voters aren’t interested in your interpretation of what or how they should vote. Reality is that voters can vote however they please. Reality is that the presentation of a candidate voters had no say in being someones “only option”, isn’t just deeply undemocratic, it functionally works against your goal (if that even is your goal, which I am barely able to offer you that charity any longer, considering how obviously this ideology of yours has led directly to the take over of fascism in the US: Fascism could not have happened here without these kinds of bad faith argument of yours).
At this point, if you are making the kinds of bad faith arguments like you are here, the kinds of arguments that directly led to Fascism, I can’t consider you an ally.
If you are doing work that prevents Democrats from being responsive to voters, you are doing the work of fascists: and fundamentally, the rhetoric of strategic voting does exactly this.
You’re free to live in denial about the FPtP voting system, but if enough people do that we get Trump. The statement “In a FPtP voting system you must vote strategically. You must vote against the party you like least” is a hard truth that you’re not accepting. Kamala is the only candidate that could’ve beaten Trump. If you didn’t vote for Kamala, you contributed in a small way to Trump’s victory.
I hate FPtP. I want ranked choice or approval voting so people can vote their conscience. But I’m not naive. I vote in the electoral system I have, not the electoral system I want. So I will vote Dem and be proud knowing this is the best I can do as a voter.
You are the one living in a denial of the reality of voting, and your opinions about what you or I should do in regards to voting strategies are utterly irrelevant. And when you make it about my voting decisions, you’ve made it incredibly clear you either don’t understand the point or are intentionally avoiding having to deal with the primary point.
This isn’t an argument about what one voter does. This is an argument about what voters do, and that’s where this shit lib self-glazing fantasy breaks down. You keep living in a fantasy were these paper strategies don’t have to actually be applied in a real world. You make the claim of this “hard truth” but totally fail to address that your “hard truth” never manifests into reality. Instead of grapelling with the fact that voters don’t vote strategically, and that making this utterly naive argument actually works against your cause, you just keep insisting that your fantastic, self defeating strategy is the only way things can be. And instead of dealing with the fact that I’m talking about voters, and electoralism, you try to make the argument about what I individually choose to do with a vote, which is not what this conversation is about.
This faithless approach is self evident, and you are living in denial of reality. Reality is that voters aren’t interested in your interpretation of what or how they should vote. Reality is that voters can vote however they please. Reality is that the presentation of a candidate voters had no say in being someones “only option”, isn’t just deeply undemocratic, it functionally works against your goal (if that even is your goal, which I am barely able to offer you that charity any longer, considering how obviously this ideology of yours has led directly to the take over of fascism in the US: Fascism could not have happened here without these kinds of bad faith argument of yours).
At this point, if you are making the kinds of bad faith arguments like you are here, the kinds of arguments that directly led to Fascism, I can’t consider you an ally.
If you are doing work that prevents Democrats from being responsive to voters, you are doing the work of fascists: and fundamentally, the rhetoric of strategic voting does exactly this.