Let's break down this bullshit: A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill Stein. The election clerks count ballots marked for Stein and report the vote totals that Stein received. A vote for Jill Stein is literally a vote for Jill Stein.

The statement that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump is, of course, metaphorical. It's asserting that a vote for Stein is morally equivalent to a vote for Trump by the speaker's moral reckoning. It's a rhetorical shortcut. This shortcut rests on the notion that either the voter would have voted for Harris, or that it is a moral imperative to stop Trump above all else.

That's a moral judgement call. Other people may judge differently. Flatly stating that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump so vehemently and absolutely elides any possibility of discourse and clearly tells the Stein voter that the speaker will not listen to or consider any of their views, or reasons to vote for Stein.

Fine, you believe that, but when has telling people more or less directly that you do not have any intention of considering their political beliefs won them over to your side? How is that a good tactic? If it worked, then why not employ it on Trump supporters? Go ahead, tell them that the party you support will ignore what they think and want, and demand they vote for your candidate.

If it doesn't work on them, why should it work on Stein voters?

I mean doyee?

No one's voting 3rd party because they think they'll win, they're just throwing away a vote for Harris. Their statement is that they have no issue with another 4 years of Trump because their demands aren't being met anyway (cough genocide).

You can argue all day about the rationality and lack of utilitarianism, but it won't change anything.

If MLK were alive, he'd probably vote Democrat because he believes there is a solution in comprise over time, and keeping Republicans out is beneficial to that. (He generally favored the more progressive party).

If Malcolm X were alive, he'd probably be protesting just like the uncommitted group, but choose not to vote if his major demand wasn't met, because his reasoning would be that any promised or hypothetical solutions would not come to fruition. (The Ballot or the Bullet)

Both have valid reasoning, and it can obviously depend on the situation, but it bugs me that 50 years later people still don't understand why people choose to vote a certain way.

In California, it doesn't matter because the results are already known. In other states the calculus is a bit different.

Who is this article for?

It doesn't address the real problem here: That first past the post voting is a broken system and that main party candidates should make more effort to fix this glaring hole in the voting system.

Because fptp is garbage, third parties are little more than a method to undermine a candidates opposition (in the US in 2024 the green party is ironically propped up in part by the republican party)

By leaving out fptp it just sounds like anti democracy drivel.

They never have this energy for the millions of actual Trump voters.