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.

  • MoonMelon@lemmy.mlEnglish
    535·
    11 days ago

    It’s the Trolley Problem. Many people finding themselves in that problem would say, “Of course I flip the switch, one person is less than five people”.

    But if you take a step back it’s reasonable to ask, “WHY did I suddenly find myself in this Trolley Problem? Trolleys don’t spring into existence fully formed like Athena springing from Zeus’ forehead. They are designed and built, piece by piece. The switch was setup by the agency of someone. People were kidnapped and tied down by force. I was placed here on purpose.”

    So given that realization it’s also reasonable when told you must choose to say, “Why? You designed this system. You tied the people down. You could have done it differently and instead deliberately did THIS. I had nothing to do with it and I refuse the premise that I must participate in your fucked up game. No matter what happens the blood is on your hands and I refuse to share in your guilt.”

    That’s the essential argument. There’s the realpolitik decision to do “less harm”, but you can also reject the fucked up premise.

    • jwelch55@lemmy.world
      2213·
      11 days ago

      You can reject the fucked up premise, and find you still live in a reality that doesn’t give a shit. In reality there are two outcomes to this election, and just a smidge of knowledge of game theory would show it doesn’t make sense to help the worse side, both in the short and long term.

      I hate that we have 2 options, I hate that there is no ‘no genocide’ option. Me hating that shouldn’t cause me to make worse decisions with clearly worse outcomes for everyone

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
        103·
        11 days ago

        The critique of the trolly problem isn’t that you don’t still make the choice, it’s that the outcome was predetermined before you even got there.

        Leftists who are making a point of abstaining are doing so to point out that voters have no control over the trolly to begin with - that the choice is artificial because the outcomes were pre-selected by someone/something else to ensure a particular outcome, and that participating in that choice only ends up legitimizing that process.

      • macabrett[they/them]@lemmy.ml
        1014·
        11 days ago

        The no genocide option is to protest against the current regime instead of vote shaming people who probably don’t even live in a single swing state (where your candidate brought Liz Fucking Cheney btw).

    • Elise@beehaw.org
      1·
      7 days ago

      Just because you think you have a good grip on reality, doesn’t mean you do. Perhaps you don’t fully understand the situation. Maybe the trolley will come to a halt on its own unless you pull the lever. See realpolitik and ww1.

    • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
      32·
      10 days ago

      every post about this topic we have one person saying its the trolley problem, and starting a digression based on that, and one person saying its all first past the post voting, and starting a digression on that. The uniformity of the pattern of distraction setting is pretty suspicious.

    • ysjet@lemmy.worldEnglish
      66·
      10 days ago

      And then the trolley cross track drifts and murders six people while the third party voter feels smug and self-righteous about ‘doing the right thing’.

      The time to prevent the construction of the trolley, to prevent people from being kidnapped from their homes and tied to trolley tracks, is every time other than the election, so your election options are the ‘Not Murdering People With Trolleys’ group.

      During the election, you minimize harm.

      And for everything else, you push for improvements.

      The time to suddenly pull a principled stance about Trolleys out of your ass is not ten seconds before your inaction kills people.

      You need to care before the trolley is barrelling down the tracks.

      • Cleggory@lemmy.world
        62·
        10 days ago

        The time to suddenly pull a principled stance about Trolleys out of your ass is not ten seconds before your inaction kills people.

        So why do establishment liberals ignore the demands of progressives until it’s time to suddenly demand their votes?