morriswalters wrote:I was pointing out that he presumes knowledge he doesn't have. He assumes that if he doesn't vote, or votes for an alternate, that it won't influence the outcome. This is true only so long as enough people don't make a similar decision, and depress Clinton's vote, and if the state is as safe as he thinks it is. He is of course welcome to vote his conscience. But I refuse to agree with him that it doesn't matter.
No, I'm presuming something that I know with near absolute certainty, which is that Massachusetts will vote for Hillary in November. In the past four elections here, the Democrat's margin of victory has varied between 23% and 27% – not to mention Hillary's two primary victories. To imagine that any other outcome is remotely plausible is as ridiculous as imagining that Stein actually stands a chance of becoming president, in which case I could criticize you for not voting for her. And if Massachusetts is
competitive, then Hillary would be looking at something like a 45-state blowout in favor of Trump.
So what you're asking me to do is to throw away my ability to do something that I consider useful and meaningful with my vote (expressing my dissatisfaction with the two-party system in one of the least competitive states), based on the mind-bogglingly infinitesimal chance that Massachusetts will be a swing state. If I let irrational fear of that magnitude influence my decisionmaking, then I would lock myself in an underground bunker and never set foot outside, let alone vote.
I work on the theory that if beating Trump is the point, than voting in a way, as a Democrat, that doesn't add to the aggregate vote for Clinton, is aiding Trump. This is currently a two party system, which is why Bernie ran as a Democrat and Trump as a Republican.
The US also has an electoral college, which means that increasing a candidate's aggregate vote means nothing if it's in a non-competitive state.
Exit the vampires' castle.