Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Schrodinger’s Voter
Some on the right say that not supporting Trump is supporting Harris. Likewise, some on the left say that not supporting Harris is supporting Trump. This leads to a curious paradox where the undecided voter is supporting both Trump and Harris, at least until political scientists observe their voter registration card.
Another paradox occurs when the undecided voter abstains on election day. Having now observed his voter registration card, we know that he is a Republican. Since he did not vote for Trump, he is supporting Harris. Clearly, voting for Harris would also be supporting Harris. So not voting for Harris = support for Harris = voting for Harris. To simplify: not voting for Harris = voting for Harris.
This concludes my post for this decade.
Published in Humor
This is where the absurdity takes us… Thank you, I think you illustrate the absurdity very well.
Naw, not voting for Trump is a net +1 vote for Harris, since a vote for Trump would cancel out a vote for Harris.
Actually voting for Harris, rather than Trump, is a net +2 for Harris, since it takes one potential vote from Trump AND also ADDS one vote for Harris.
Not voting for Trump may not be “supporting” Harris, as “support” connotes an intent, but it definitely “assists” Harrris, or “enables” Harris, or whatever you prefer.
It is being a conscientious objector when the republic is fighting to survive – standing athwart history yelling… I’m sitting this one out.
I’m not going to comment beyond noting there are too many fallacies presented here to address coherently. But I will follow and watch.
Only a computer, which can merely process inputs literally, would output the above logic paradox(es).
Flesh and blood human beings, on the other hand, since they are capable of understanding the meaning behind a string of words, would have no problem understanding that when someone says “If you’re not supporting Trump, you’re supporting Harris”, he simply means something like “If you don’t vote for Trump, you make it easier for Harris to win.”
That’s why, for example, I suggested “assisting” rather than “supporting.”
What’s interesting to me is that the Democratic Party understands this crazy math but the Republicans don’t.
The Democrats know that if a sliver of the voting base that normally votes for the Democrats simply sits out this election because they don’t like Trump or Harris, Trump will win. That’s why the Democrats are pandering so ridiculously to the pro-Hamas/anti-Israel voters.
The voting public is roughly split up with a third being Republicans, a third being Democrats, and a third being independents. And election after election we are told that elections are binary, dammit, BINARY! and anyone who votes outside the two major party candidates is a stupid, vain, jerk. In almost all presidential elections, most voters do follow orders and choose either the R or D official candidate. The Republicans and Democrats can put up terrible candidates and still get 90+ percent of the votes. Would America really get better leaders if every last voter were pressured by their peers to take one of the major party candidates and ignore all other possibilities? Are these few holdouts persuadable, anyway, or are people just making themselves more disliked by demanding that their peers choose between two repulsive and forsake all others?
At this point in the process, the individual candidates at the top of their respective tickets don’t matter very much. Whichever party wins will matter enormously for the future.
The top of the Republican party matters quite a bit more than the top of the Democrat party, as it’s really just an election on whether to cooperate with the administrative state or try to put some obstacles in its path. The individual abilities of a cooperator aren’t very important, as the administrative state will pick up any slack.
I think it’s more accurate to say, “Not voting for Trump helps Harris.”
Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley, and most recently Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.–all have endorsed Trump.
That is significant for a couple of reasons: (a) In the course of their own campaigns, they have traveled across the country, and they have talked to a lot Americans. Based on those recent experiences, they believe that a Biden-Harris or Harris-Walz administration would be bad for the country. They want to see a Republican administration. (b) They did not have to endorse Trump. They did so of their own free will because they believe he, mostly because he is a Republican, gives the United States a better shot at navigating whatever lies ahead.
I think we voters should listen to them and vote for Trump.
I don’t know who is calling people stupid jerks.
I also don’t know if independent is the right term for someone who flips a coin to see who they’ve voting for.
At this point, there are no “other possibilities” to “forsake”. The choice is even more starkly binary than Reagan vs Carter in 1980.
It is an election to see what percent wants to be ruled over in a nanny state, how many want freedom and earned prosperity, and how many have checked out.
Those who are checking out temporarily for this election will be replaced by those checking out next elections, having spent their energy these last 9 years for nothing. They will join the other permanently checked out, becoming hermits living in their local, personal world, ignoring the outside world…ignoring federal elections because “what difference does it make?”
Those who thought “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” will find no path back to power after engineering the defeat of MAGA. They will remain loathed by those they abandoned and by those who used them and no longer need them.
There is no right and wrong side of history, only history, a recording of human nature to learn from or to ignore and repeat.
My check-out date is the day early voting opens. I will do my duty and walk away.
Or “assists” as I suggested. “Helps” is a synonym of course.
The conventional wisdom this comes from, to a large extent, is that if the black vote is not overall 90% or better for the D, they lose. As mentioned previously/elsewhere, black women are probably going to vote at least 90% D no matter who the nominee is, maybe even if it was David Duke. But black men have been turning towards Trump, perhaps up to 30% or even 40%. I don’t think switching in Harris will change that, both because they more recognize the actual policy difference, and maybe they also don’t want another woman telling them what to do.
I doubt many of them “flip a coin” although some may not make a final decision until time to actually vote, and then it might be based just on the last speech they heard or whatever. But they are not a consistent vote for either major party, pretty much no matter what they do or who they nominate.
Well one could mean them to be equivalent but in context this board I disagree. The two statements are certainly are not made with the same frequency. The second statement is factual and neutral. It is the kind of argument I would use if I was trying to persuade someone such as myself to vote for Trump. I rarely or ever hear this type of argument.
The first statement “If you don’t support Trump you support Harris” also makes a further claim about someone’s intentions and motives. This type argument is made frequently on this board. I consider it an accusation. One reason it fails to persuade is the accused knows what they think and so they know with certainty it is a false accusation. The natural response to being falsely accused is to get one’s back up and stop listening. Context also matters and a post making the “you don’t support Trump therefore you support Harris … ” argument will often contain more accusations about supporting many other evil outcomes(is this hyperbole?). I believe people sincerely advance the “you must support Harris” line and they mean exactly what they say. Its not ambiguous. I just don’t think they are persuading anyone.
If you meet Joe Voter on the street and he says he is not going to vote, is he assisting Harris or Trump? My point is you need an additional piece of information. I think the assumption baked into the “not voting for Trump is supporting/assisting/enabling/whatever Harris” argument, is that you are far enough right that the only two possible options are vote Republican or don’t vote. In that case, yes, withholding your vote from Trump is assisting Harris. I just think it’s counterproductive to talk as if there’s not a third option. We should distinguish between the NeverTrumper who sits it out and the one who is so revolted he votes for Harris. These are mathematically different things.
“Sitting it out” suggests a lazy, childish decision not to play the game rather than abide by rules you don’t like. I think there are perfectly reasonable motivations for abstaining from the vote that don’t entail a regression to elementary school playground behavior,
Take it to the next level, though. Like that Star Trek with the android Norman.
Don’t assume that someone with a Republican voter ID is actually a Republican. Party affiliation changes for individuals. Sometimes, it changes in the person’s mind, and the person doesn’t bother changing it with the voter authorities.
So let’s say you just have an undecided voter. Then, as you argue:
But at the same time:
Thus, not voting is actually the same as voting for Harris and it is the same as voting for Trump!
The beauty about the way computers interpret instructions is that it forces you to be careful about the inputs you provide. Of course not voting for trump makes it easier for Harris to win. That seems like a tautology and not worth saying. My problem is that when no distinction is made between not voting at all and voting for Harris, it muddies the discussion, rather than focusing it. By equating the two choices, you are suggesting the person must want to support/assist Harris. You are assigning motive rather than discussing the merits of a 3rd option that is clearly not the same thing as voting for Harris.
And yet no matter who wins, the debt will continue to skyrocket and Social Security and Medicare will not be touched. I’ve read that deficits and debt reduction aren’t even in the Republican platform anymore. I despise the behemoth that is the administrative state, but I don’t think that’s what’s going to bankrupt us. I miss the days when Republicans pretended to care about the debt.
You’re continuing to reinforce my complaint, equating the choice not to vote with “checking out.” Can you not imagine any rational argument for not supporting either candidate, or supporting a 3rd party?
Thank you for making a positive argument. My complaint that prompted the post is with the rhetorical tactic of equating not voting for Trump to supporting Harris, or preferring Harris over Trump, rather than making a positive case for Trump.
I had been considering a post titled “Coming out as non-binary” to explain my argument for considering a 3rd party, or not voting, as a rational decision. But then I found out some commentator had already been ridiculing some other commentator as non-binary for similar thinking. Dang, I stole someone’s idea without even knowing it, except I intended to wear it as a badge of honor. Oh well. I always wonder who gets to decide what percentage of the vote a 3rd party candidate needs to get before the choice is non-binary.
Thanks for this response. I think I made some similar points, probably poorly, in another response before I ready yours. Equating not voting at all with supporting Harris is assigning motive. I don’t find it persuasive either.
Except for those darned RESULTS, and CONSEQUENCES, and stuff…
“Choosing not to choose, is choosing.”