“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”
That math would only work if Harris was lower in the polls. If she had less of a chance to win.
She is tied for first place. So your math is backwards. A vote for a third party is taking votes from Harris.
You are going for a degree in education, and you can’t understand how if Harris is higher in the polls, that a vote for somebody else is taking a vote away from her? You plan to teach individuals but can’t understand how if person is higher in the polls that if you vote for somebody who is lower in the polls, you’re taking votes from the person higher in the polls?
I mean technically a vote for anybody else is taking a vote away from somebody else, But I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of people would not see it your way.
You seem to be implying some light mockery of my degree, yet it seems you missed the nuance of my comment, which was actually turning the same logic people use against third-party voters back on them.
The point is to show how absurd it sounds when you reverse the argument. You say voting for anyone else is taking votes from Harris, but by that logic, wouldn’t voting for Harris be stealing votes from candidates who represent real change?
I understand how polls work, but I also understand that we’re allowed to vote based on who we actually believe in, not just who’s leading in the polls. It’s the classic “vote for the lesser of two evils” mentality, and I’m challenging that by showing how it leads to more of the same.
Better?
