That is what you are doing, you are making the voter choose only between 2 choices, when in fact they have more than one, because only one of those 2 choices are likely to get elected.
Voting is about influencing who gets in power.
When there are only two results possible, everything you do is a choice about which of those outcomes you prefer.
That it might
also provide some additional information is an add on effect. (And, again, one that is handled badly by plurality voting.)
There are LOTS of reasons I harp on about better voting systems and one is that I
want people to have more meaningful choices.
Of course that is what you do. You vote per your conscience. If your conscience suggests that you do not want Trump to win, and if that is the priority for you, then you vote for whoever you think has the best chance of beating Trump. If your conscience suggests that you vote for Cornell West because the Israel Palestine issue is big for you, you vote for him, whether or not he wins.
This is an incredibly bad way to look at voting in a system where doing so results in worse outcomes.
Voting is a method to determine government, not a plebiscite about the sentiment of the people.
That people
still believe that voting is supposed to be about your personal feelings about your vote is a pernicious myth and the quicker people can be disabused of this notion the better.
By that definition my choice to vote for say Cornell West or another independent, hurts Trump too. So your accusation that it helps Trump falls flat right there.
Not at all.
It hurts whoever of the two you would vote for if forced to choose.
Now, if what you are saying is that in a normal situation between Trump and Biden, you would choose Trump then yes, your choice to vote for West hurts Trump.
But the real issue isn't "who does it hurt". It is "which outcome do you prefer"?
If your preferred outcome is Trump over Biden, then voting for West hurts Trump. If your preferred outcome is Biden over Trump, then voting for West hurts Biden.
The important part is that voting for West hurts
you because it makes your preferred outcome less likely.
Both choices - Trump and Biden are detrimental for this particular issue of Palestine. Say I was a voter, I may choose Cornell West or some other to ensure my vote does not go to either of the two that I dont like. If Cornell West or other independent candidates did not exist as a choice, I may choose to not vote at all. It just means you voted per your beliefs.
And produce an outcome.
Now, if you truly believe there is
absolutely no difference between Trump and Biden on Palestine, then your vote is rational.
If, however, you believe there is (even if both are bad), then you have made the situation worse because instead of putting the person in who gives you a result you prefer, you deprived them of your vote.
And that is, of course, an assumption that you have no preferences in any other way between the two people who might win.
If you have any other preferences between the two, then you have the same dilemma, even if you think they are exactly equal in all ways on the issue of Palestine.
You are being presumptuous about what is good for the voter. The voter is an individual and they will make their choices that they find beneficial for them.
EXACTLY!
As I said above. "Voting your conscience" is
detrimental for you.
This is key to why plurality voting is so reviled.
The only benefit it gives is you being able to say "I voted my conscience" while it actively contributes to making the situation you had a conscience about worse.
(Now yes, there is an argument that it is a long-term strategy. Making the situation worse will cause enough people to suffer that eventually someone will do the right thing about it. I don't think that's a
good argument, but it is at least one that doesn't pretend the system is something other than it is.)
That includes not voting for Biden or Trump, or even anyone at all. Or voting for an independent. What exact benefit would a pro-Palestinian person have in voting in Biden? None. Trump? None. So what do they do? They either choose to not vote at all, or vote for someone who speaks their mind. Its fair enough. So no, you are still wrong about this.
See above.
This is entirely the wrong way to think about voting, especially in a plurality winner system.
He literally said those sentences. Those were his words. He uttered those 3 sentences. Case closed.
I am interpreting nothing. I am repeating translation of 3 sentences that literally came out of his mouth, word for word.
That isn't case closed at all and you know it.
You are absolutely interpreting things.
He said "We will eliminate everything". What is in Gaza? People, infrastructure, animals. Everything is an all encompassing term. It proves genocidal intent without a shred of doubt. I am not even quoting his other pronouncements of Palestinians as "human animals", or Israel's president saying "there are no non-combatants in Gaza" etc., Just going off of his words alone is enough to show genocidal intent. As I said, if all they wanted was to take out Hamas, they could have just said so. Its not difficult. Hamas attacked them. They could have said "We will eliminate Hamas". But he did not. He chose to say "We will eliminate everything".
You are the one grasping at straws on this one. I am simply pointing out what Gallant very clearly said.
No, I'm not.
Look.
This is
easy to settle.
Show the whole clip.
I think it is very likely he said something every bit as genocidal as you say.
But no one should take an edited clip on the internet without skepticism.
samidoun.net
www.jpost.com
www.wfp.org
