As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.

I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.

Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.

Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.

Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.

  • leidkultur@lemmy.one
    48·
    5 days ago

    It’s not as easy as you make it out to be.

    The Democrats have to try to achieve the impossible: trying to retain left-leaning voters while getting enough centrists/swing votes to overcome the systematic disadvantage the electoral college poses for them.

    In a de facto two party system that puts them between a rock and a hard place.

    But what does that mean for you as a (I assume) left leaning voter?

    It’s actually quite simple: vote for the least bad option.

    By not voting for Harris you may successfully show the democrats your discontent for their policies. But you pay for that by helping a possible fascist into power (remember: we already found out that not voting, helps republican candidates in most cases), who will be far worse on most policies you care about.

    • Cherries@lemmy.world
      9·
      5 days ago

      It really doesn’t feel like the Democrats are the least bad option when they keep adopting Republican policies. Sure, they don’t want to kill trans people or conduct mass deportations now, but it sure feels like 4 years down the line I’m gonna be asked to vote Democrat even though Harris or whoever is trying to increase police budgets to “fight rising crime” or something ridiculous.

      I keep having to vote for “the least bad option” while the Democratic party only ever courts neo-liberal/conservative voters. It really seems like my options are Fascist Now Party or Fascist Later Party. If the Democrats don’t listen when I vote and don’t listen when I abstain, why should I vote?

      I feel like it is not a winning campaign strategy to say, “vote for Democrats because the Republicans are far worse”. Progressive left policies are popular amongst centrist and swing voters, so it isn’t like the Democrats will lose centrists by adopting progressive policies. Everybody likes expanding healthcare. Nobody likes genocide. So if adopting progressive policies attracts voters from all across the spectrum, why are the Democrats only focusing on stuff like, “build the wall” or “stay silent about genocide”?

      • FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works
        24·
        5 days ago

        It really seems like my options are Fascist Now Party or Fascist Later Party. If the Democrats don’t listen when I vote and don’t listen when I abstain, why should I vote?

        The answer is in your question. Fascism later is the better option because it buys you time to do something else. Fascism now means the game is over today. Nothing about that is difficult to understand.

        You’ll have ample time (and freedom) to oppose Harris after November, but now’s not the time.

        • macabrett[they/them]
          2·
          5 days ago

          Based on how liberals have accepted genocide as necessary at this point, the “fascism later” option seems more likely to make people comfortable with fascism, rather than buying us time to resist.

          • FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works
            11·
            5 days ago

            Even if that was true, how is that better than having fascism today, given than genocide will happen no matter what? You seem to imply people will have more willingness to resist if it happens tomorrow (and I doubt it). But are you really willing to take the chance on actual fascism? It really seems like you want it to happen…

            You guys have a twisted sense of priorities. You’re willing to trade a maybe for a surely.

            • macabrett[they/them]
              2·
              5 days ago

              You’re willing to trade a maybe for a surely.

              America is currently “surely” assisting in a genocide. Hope this helps!