Quote:
See this is why it's a legitimate excuse to say I don't have time to answer your "simple" yes/no question. You're using the same flawed reasoning everyone's (correctly) accused the dumbest deplorables of: expecting a simple answer to a complex issue. Because the simple answer to that question is absolutely worthless unless there's an understanding of what caused these two candidates to become the nominees, what's going on in the electorate that allows this election to be close, what are the broader implications of voting or not voting and what is an individual's responsibility in a democracy.
On the off chance you're actually interested in discussing those issues as opposed to getting some answer you could interpret in a way that allows you to spike footballs: What are you imagining turnout is in this election? Is worse-Trump a threat to win because he's supported by ~50% of the country and everyone's voting? Or is it an election where neither candidate could drive much turnout? If it's the former then you have to accept that worse-Trump is the choice of the electorate. If you wanted to kill democracy and start a new government in light of that I would understand but you chose not to. If it's the latter then we must be dealing with some kind of worse-HRC candidate as well. We could get into all kinds of discussions about whether such an election should be considered legitimate and what led to such a terrible choice that doesn't seem to reflect the will of nearly anyone but let's focus first on the responsibility to cast a vote, since that's how this discussion kicked off in the first place. Do you believe that promoting higher turnout would fix the problem?
I think I know your answer to that question so I'll go ahead and claim your answer is objectively wrong. Promoting turnout is a feature of good candidates that's lost when you also promote turnout for bad candidates. Doug Jones is a Senator because he turned out a much higher % of his likely voters than Roy Moore did. If all eligible voters in Alabama cast their votes it wouldn't have gone down like that. What you're failing to understand is that your imagined solutions to real-Trump's election won't work the way you think they will. There is no coherent set of beliefs that conclude anything other than the idea that Trump represents the will of the electorate as a legitimately elected candidate, his election was illegitimate, or that HRC was a terrible candidate who couldn't even beat Trump. None of those imply I should have voted.
Side note: circular reasoning implies that a premise of an argument is the same as the conclusion. Your mangled interpretation of what I said is neither correct nor does it display the characteristics of circular reasoning. You basically posted a branching statement and claimed it was a loop. I would've expected a programmer of all people should be able to recognize the difference but here we are. If you're going to accuse me of poor reasoning at least be accurate about it.
No one should be obligated to vote, in general, but whether you vote should be a function of not only how good the best candidate is but also the gap between the possible outcomes.
Your calculus appears to be:
"The best possible result is HRC. That is not a good result. Therefore I do not vote."
I contend that analysis is incomplete, and that who the opponents are must necessarily factor into any such decision.
