If she’s going to throw transgender people under the bus, she will also do nothing to protect immigrants, or people of color, or parents, or the elderly, or animals, or the climate, or the environment, etc.
Politics is not two-dimensional. Don’t get me wrong, she’s acting like a piece of utter shit in her treatment of trans people. But to assume all of her other beliefs because of that one is a fallacy. Would I rather the people of Ohio have a viable progressive candidate? 100%. But they don’t, because
The more I think on it, the only move that plays to win is putting in the effort to organize around a grassroots progressive as a write-in.
In a first-past-the-post system, all this move does is guarantee that the more conservative major candidate wins. This is called the spoiler effect. By removing support from the major candidate who is more aligned with your views, you are voting against your own interests, because it effectively improves the position of the major candidate who is less aligned with your views. There is not a vote total a candidate needs to win, they just need more votes than the other candidates.
I absolutely despise our voting system, but despising it doesn’t mean it goes away. Until we move to a ranked choice system or something similar, it is practically always a losing move to abandon the lesser of two evils. In our shitty system, Vote aggressively for progressive candidates in primaries, and then vote defensively for the least regressive major candidate in the general. Until we do that, or until we get rid of our godawful system, the Republicans will keep winning. Because they understand this. You may have heard the phrase, “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.”
Thanks for the thoughtful reply; best among ones I got. This analysis doesn’t take into account long-term effects. I think voting Acton is voting to lose because it precludes any chance at better future politics. This is the crux of my thinking. I’m familiar with what you’ve laid out, but often don’t see analysis include future elections.
And we’re at the inflection point of US politics. If people aren’t getting involved, then it’s over anyways, so again, voting Acton is just voting to lose the long-game. We need young people, working class people, everyone talking and organizing IRL.
Business as usual is a losing game. Gotta spend the effort on strong foundations; something new; something for the people.
Thank you for putting it succinctly. I’m not happy about my choices but I know damn well Vivek will be 1000x worse than Acton.
My vote is less a vote for Amy Acton and more a vote against Vivek Ramaswami because Vivek is a complete piece of shit opportunistic grifter who will do absolutely nothing but enrich himself.
Politics is not two-dimensional. Don’t get me wrong, she’s acting like a piece of utter shit in her treatment of trans people. But to assume all of her other beliefs because of that one is a fallacy. Would I rather the people of Ohio have a viable progressive candidate? 100%. But they don’t, because
In a first-past-the-post system, all this move does is guarantee that the more conservative major candidate wins. This is called the spoiler effect. By removing support from the major candidate who is more aligned with your views, you are voting against your own interests, because it effectively improves the position of the major candidate who is less aligned with your views. There is not a vote total a candidate needs to win, they just need more votes than the other candidates.
I absolutely despise our voting system, but despising it doesn’t mean it goes away. Until we move to a ranked choice system or something similar, it is practically always a losing move to abandon the lesser of two evils. In our shitty system, Vote aggressively for progressive candidates in primaries, and then vote defensively for the least regressive major candidate in the general. Until we do that, or until we get rid of our godawful system, the Republicans will keep winning. Because they understand this. You may have heard the phrase, “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.”
Thanks for the thoughtful reply; best among ones I got. This analysis doesn’t take into account long-term effects. I think voting Acton is voting to lose because it precludes any chance at better future politics. This is the crux of my thinking. I’m familiar with what you’ve laid out, but often don’t see analysis include future elections.
And we’re at the inflection point of US politics. If people aren’t getting involved, then it’s over anyways, so again, voting Acton is just voting to lose the long-game. We need young people, working class people, everyone talking and organizing IRL.
Business as usual is a losing game. Gotta spend the effort on strong foundations; something new; something for the people.
Thank you for putting it succinctly. I’m not happy about my choices but I know damn well Vivek will be 1000x worse than Acton.
My vote is less a vote for Amy Acton and more a vote against Vivek Ramaswami because Vivek is a complete piece of shit opportunistic grifter who will do absolutely nothing but enrich himself.