atymes at gmail.com
Sun Aug 14 17:13:08 UTC 2016
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 9:36 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
>>> when somebody votes for a third party candidate they're helping to give
>>> Donald Trump total control of 4500 H-bombs
>> That is only true for voters where:
>> 1) they are in a state where the electoral outcome isn't basically
>> predetermined, meaning their presidential vote does not count for anything
>> other than whether the winner perceives a mandate
>> 2) they would otherwise have voted for Clinton
> Number 1 in particular is false for the vast majority of voters.
> Are you really willing to bet not only your life but the continuation of
> the entire human race on the validity of a poll taken 3
> months before the election?
In my case? On every single reputable poll in this election so far, plus
decades of prior presidential races.
California's electors will go to the Democratic candidate, with over 99%
probability. That statement is true, retaining "Democratic" or
substituting "Republican" as necessary, for the majority of states in the
US. (There is a small chance that Trump will no longer be the Republican
candidate come November, but this does not change the fact that many states
are locked into the Republican candidate no matter what.)
As I live in California, even in theory my vote can only affect the
California electors. I have less say in the electors of the other states.
Your "survival imperative" argument only applies in states where there is a
significant chance that individual votes could take the state away from
Now, if you would like to stop accusing the rest of us of wholeheartedly
supporting genocide when we are not in fact supporting genocide, in theory
or in practice, that would be appreciated. As demonstrated, your chain of
logic that suggests that third party votes increase the chance of Trump's
victory, regardless of what state said votes are cast in, is in error.
Indeed, it is so easily disproven that I might almost wonder if you are a
paid employee of the Democratic party: the quality of your argument is
consistent with the low standard seen from both major parties when trying
to convince people not to vote third party.
Assuming you are not a Democratic staffer and honestly believe what you
have said, a far more productive chain of thought would be to reflect on
those states that are locked into the Republican candidate even under these
conditions (not the "battleground" states, but states like Texas and Utah),
honestly consider why they are, and perhaps try to come up with some way to
get those states to not vote for the destruction of humanity.
Think about it. Lowering the odds of Trump getting some battleground state
is one thing, but what if you could come up with a way to take the "solid
red" states away from him? Badgering individual voters won't do it; you
need a force multiplier. Please invent or find one. The rest of humanity
would be grateful if you could not just keep Trump out of office, but make
it so that he doesn't get even a single elector.
Yes, this will take work and not just arguing. But if you really think the
fate of humanity is on the line, doesn't that demand you do something more
And besides, if you can figure out why most of Texas hasn't been able to
figure out yet that Trump would be worse than Clinton for them, I'd like to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat