You really had no interest in engaging with me did you? Because I basically fully agreed with you in my previous comment and you said I wasn't open to ideas.

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You failed to be adequate in either reading comprehension or presentation.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ad hominem

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

Learn your fallacies.

[–] ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

OK. I'll assign more benefit of the doubt.

To be moral and ethical in their voting choice, to serve systemic design intent, to serve the practicalities of implementation, an individual need not care about others' votes.

So, it's incorrect to set as a prerequisite a belief in success of a 5% goal to vote for it. Presenting as you did exemplifies the propaganda-fed ego of the neoliberal. The meaning in voting is not to make you feel good about yourself for choosing the bandwagon that wins. All should vote for whom best represents them with reckless disregard for the short-term outcome.

The eventual counterargument to what I'm saying is rooted in utilitarianism: Democracy produces at best mediocre outcomes. The systemic design answer was the electoral college.