Logic explanation please

[RickD]

I caught the tail end of the Dennis Prager show today, and Dennis was making an argument that I can't understand. Since I can't ask him, maybe someone could explain it to me.

His argument is that if one does not vote for Trump, that then becomes a vote for Clinton. And he was adamant about this point.

He made his argument when callers were saying that they cannot vote for Clinton nor Trump.

Here's how I see it. Picture a balancing scale. One side is a vote for Trump. The other side is a vote for Clinton. Before I cast my vote, the scale is balanced. There is no vote for either, so the scale is not tipped to one side. If I vote for Clinton, the scale tips to the Clinton side. A vote for Trump tips the scale to the other side. But if I don't vote for either, and abstain from voting, the scale stays even. There is no tipping towards either side.

So, someone please explain how a non-vote equals a vote for Clinton.

Please keep this thread about the logic of the argument, and don't derail it into an argument for either candidate.

[Jac3510]

The claim that abstaining to vote (or voting third party) is a vote for Clinton cannot be maintained.

On the other hand, I don't suspect that is what he literally meant. I expect he was speaking rhetorically in attempt to be persuasive. Because what can be maintained is the argument that there is only one way to reasonably prevent Clinton from being elected and that is to vote for Trump; ergo, to refuse to vote for Trump is to be complicit in Clinton's election. Now, it's up to you to decide if being complicit in Clinton's election is good, bad, or indifferent, particularly given the question of the cost of not being complicit (i.e., voting for Trump). In other words, how you judge that depends on context. But as far as that argument goes, it would be true.

edit:

And to extend the argument, even if you don't vote at all or vote third party and Trump still wins, it can still be said that you did not contribute to her defeat. Again, you can decide if that it is a good, bad, or neutral thing. That depends, for example, on if you judge Clinton needs to be defeated and, if so, how dangerous of a threat she is. That further has to be balanced, again, against the cost of contributing to her defeat (i.e., voting for Trump).

[Byblos]

Even if you were to take the point as you have, Rick, i.e. a no-vote for Trump is a vote for Clinton, it is not as straight forward as a scale analogy since you're not taking into consideration the electoral college. In a swing state where Clinton is leading by a marginal count, non-votes for Trump actually are votes for Clinton because with them they may have effectively swung the state scale to the other side (and thereby the entire election). Obviously the other side of the equation (non-votes for Clinton are votes for Trump) is equally as true. There's no way to quantify the net, however, until after the election.

[RickD]

Thanks for the responses.

I understand what you both are saying. But I still don't see Prager's logic. A "non-vote" isn't a vote for a candidate, unless there's some system that has an incumbent who automatically remains in office unless the newcomer gets more votes.

[Philip]

It's very simple and more like this: WHOMEVER is the candidate that you DON'T want, and there is another candidate that reasonably has the numbers to potentially defeat that unwanted candidate, and so you decide not to vote, then your non-vote misses its OPPORTUNITY to be applied so as to function in neutralizing ONE vote for the candidate (you definitely oppose - or WHATEVER other candidate you do not desire). Your vote for any one candidate neutralizes a vote for any other that has a real opportunity of winning. Another missed opportunity "non-vote" is voting for a candidate that has NO realistic opportunity of winning.

Another way to look at it is, let's say you KNOW and are absolutely certain that one candidate is just bad news, with a proven track record of disaster. You would NEVER vote for that person, they are so bad. Let's say a second candidate opposes that terrible candidate, but that there are also many things about the person that you really dislike. But let's also say that the second candidate has a gray area that MIGHT have the potential for either a lot of good things, or at least that is POTENTIALLY nowhere near as bad as the candidate that you absolutely know to be terrible. Should you not vote with hope and prayer that the second candidate might actually do a lot more good than what you fear about them? Unless one sees NO (at least POTENTIALLY) good candidates that can win, and unless they are just voting for a third candidate merely to make a symbolic point/while ultimately wasting their vote (in an opportunity to help elect one of the other candidates), then why not take a chance that a candidate that you view as terribly flawed, might actually surprise you?

Yes, voting is a VERY important responsibility. But I also realize we live in an imperfect world with imperfect choices. So often we act as if we should not vote unless we can find someone that we have absolute certainty about or in which there are no, at least potentially, gray areas which MIGHT actually turn out positive. This means we might well miss an opportunity to elect someone who might well surprise us in positive ways - certainly as opposed to the candidate that we absolutely KNOW is horrible - GIVEN OUR OPTIONS. We are only responsible for making the best decisions upon what options/the candidates which ARE ACTUALLY PRESENTED US. If we choose unwisely, yet with good hoped and prayed for outcomes, I think that has potential merit. But many are not realists - as they desire not to vote at all unless one candidate checks a certain number of their criteria boxes. There is almost always hope in the unknown as opposed to the known - that's true in much of life. It's also true in politics. Ultimately, we must do and vote with imperfect information. That's just the nature of our uncertain options vs. our certain desires. But, so often, the cynics in us would rather not vote at all, just in case it all goes bad, that we can say, "Well, I never voted for him!" To me, that's putting our egos ahead of our hope and prayers for good things. Because God can honor enough people voting with sincere hope and prayers - even through unlikely politicians.

[RickD]

Philip,

I completely understand that logic. And I may even be convinced that it's the best way to approach this election. And Prager even spoke about it too.

But the whole "not voting is a positive vote for a candidate" just makes no logical sense to me.

Why couldn't not voting, be a vote for Trump? Why Clinton? Is she some kind of default winner, that gets an automatic vote from all registered voters who abstain?

[Philip]

Rick: Why couldn't not voting, be a vote for Trump? Why Clinton? Is she some kind of default winner, that gets an automatic vote from all registered voters who abstain?

If Clinton is positioned to win (and she IS), and yet Trump obviously has the numbers that could defeat her - as she is obviously the only other one who can beat him, a non-vote for Hillary would definitely be a vote for Trump, DEPENDENT UPON, of course, the number of collective voters/non-voters in each camp. But if huge numbers of people opt out for any one candidate - guess what THAT means for the OTHER one?

The other issue, obviously, is electoral votes and how they are population-based, per each state. It is possible to win the election but not win the popular vote.

But Rick, you're question about non voting sounds as if you are trying to find a moral reason not to vote for anyone - given the candidates. However, remember what I stated about there being, at least the POTENTIAL, for good things from a flawed candidate, which God can use, if enough people of conscience, while hoping and praying, would take a step out in faith that God might do what seems practically impossible - take a very flawed candidate and bless a nation (wouldn't be the first time - ever read the Bible???!!!). Only if ALL candidates have NO perceived good qualities or at least potential for good, could I justify not voting at all. I live in the REAL world, not that perfect fantasy one that I think I deserve - or at least desire.

[RickD]

Philip wrote:
But Rick, you're question about non voting sounds as if you are trying to find a moral reason not to vote for anyone -

No. You're reading too much into it. I just don't get Prager's logic.

Tbh,

As I stand at this moment, I could be content abstaining, or voting Trump the Republican ticket.


I've already made up my mind that my conscience would be clear either way. I just haven't decided which is better.

But I'm kinda leaning towards voting republican. Leaning, but not convinced.

[Philip]

Just a little nudge, Ricko!

The idea of the Clintons back in the White House is simply sickening! All these years of playing to the underclasses in blaming the establishment and Wall Street for America's problems, all the while taking untold gazillions from the very same! She'd love to turn every fool into either a voter or a non-voter (with the same hoped for results)!

[RickD]

It's kinda like feeling like I have to choose between cancer and the influenza. Do I just choose neither, hoping I won't get Cancer, and being ok if I get influenza?

Or do I choose influenza hoping that my choice actually means something, and I don't end up with Cancer anyways?

[Storyteller]

Your last statement.

And then, having got over influenza, you can get well

So yeah, a nonvote can pretty much be a vote for the worst.

If you can choose, and it matters enough you care, then vote.

[RickD]

Your last statement.

And then, having got over influenza, you can get well

So yeah, a nonvote can pretty much be a vote for the worst.

If you can choose, and it matters enough you care, then vote.

What if I vote third party(the common cold)?

But if I voted to get a cold, it would end up turning into the flu or cancer.

And FYI, while most likely the influenza will be bad but not deadly, one can still die from the influenza.

What would really suck is if I gave myself the flu, and ended up with rectal cancer.


Yes, I just compared Clinton with rectal cancer.

[abelcainsbrother]

I can think back to the last two elections when I did not vote. I knew Obama would be terrible but I could not vote for RINO'S on the Republican side. I knew not voting meant Obama had a better chance to win,but I decided I would rather Democrats like Obama harm our country with socialism rather than Republicans who run as Reagan conservatives to get elected and let and allow the country to continue to slide toward socialism.

When I look back on it now I believe I made the right choice because Obama has given us a big taste of socialism which has caused the American people to hate it,so much so that Trump is so popular now. So I made the right choice to not vote in the last two elections.The American people are fed up with both parties desires to give us more socialism,which is what I've been waiting on. I still would rather it be the Democrats that destroy America with socialism instead of Republicans who are supposed to be conservatives fighting against socialism. I really believe Obama has set the Democrat Party back twenty years with his liberal policies if Trump is able to do the things he's running on.

I now realize that I was not the only person who sat out the last two elections but millions of other American's did also which is why Trump won by such large margins like he did,so it was millions of Americans fed up with the political games both parties have played on us for years.