Schrodinger’s Voter

jaWes (View Post):

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 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. Not voting for Harris = Support for Harris = voting for Harris. Simplifying, Not voting for Harris = Voting for Harris.

This concludes my post for this decade.

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."