What Would It Take for You to Vote for Biden?

[Neanderthaland]

I don't approve of strategies that require that everyone else doesn't think the same way as you do.

Game theory is a major part of politics. You should try applying it.

I'm a big fan of game theory. I apply it frequently. That's WHY I don't think this is a good strategy.

[Kowani]

Game theory is a major part of politics. You should try applying it.

I'm a big fan of game theory. I apply it frequently. That's WHY I don't think this is a good strategy.

Please, explain why.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

My mind is too concerned about the pandemic and my family’s safety right now to give much thought about the elections. Biden’s never been my cup o’ tea, I preferred Bernie, both in 2016 and now. Just this moment, him and the sexual misconduct/abuse/whatever it is accusations rank null in my list of priorities. Not a reflection on anyone, btw. It’s just that right now, this is not on my radar, it doesn’t rank as a concern for me.

[Mandicoria]

The only way I vote for Biden is if he becomes a die-hard Communist overnight.

Blessed message.

[Ankenland]

Well, to start with, he would have to be normal.

It's not hard to do.

[Qabea]

I lost all respect for him after the Tara Reade allegations were dropped, I'm not voting for the guy. Right now I'm considering writing in Mike Gravel or sucking it up and voting Trump to maintain some level of stability during the COVID-19 recovery.

(edit: I'm also keeping the Green party on the table, but I haven't heard any compelling reasons why I should vote for them yet.)

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I lost all respect for him after the Tara Reade allegations were dropped, I'm not voting for the guy. Right now I'm considering writing in Mike Gravel or sucking it up and voting Trump to maintain some level of stability during the COVID-19 recovery.

“Trump” and “stability”. Never thought I’d see those two words in a sentence together, in earnest.

[Qabea]

I lost all respect for him after the Tara Reade allegations were dropped, I'm not voting for the guy. Right now I'm considering writing in Mike Gravel or sucking it up and voting Trump to maintain some level of stability during the COVID-19 recovery.

“Trump” and “stability”. Never thought I’d see those two words in a sentence together, in earnest.

Ikr. My logic right now is that maintaining the status quo is the best thing to do in a national crisis. We kept the same president through tests like the Civil War, World War two, and 9/11. I personally think trying to transition power would, for a period of time, stagnate actions to combat the virus and kill more people.

[West Leas Oros 2]

The only way I vote for Biden is if he becomes a die-hard Communist overnight.

Unironically this. Comrade Biden is the only Biden i’ll Support.

[Ethel mermania]

You must hate board games and video games then.

No, but then treating this like a game is what gets people like Trump or Jesse Ventura elected.

People tired of the status quo is what gets trump or Jesse elected.

In 2016 the Republicans tried to run. !Jeb, and we got the non politician trump. The democrats saw a non democrat run away with it and then turned on the machine and we got Hillary.

When the parties are more concerned with holding onto their power and position and ignore what the people want, anyone who can self finance immediately becomes a credible alternative.

[Ankenland]

This would be the moment for American leftists to acknowledge that the superdelegate system of the Democratic party keeps delivering them unpopular, losing institutional candidates, and is responsible for the 2016 and upcoming 2020 losses to the Republican party, whose lack of superdelegates and direct primary system delivered popular, anti-institutional pseudo-revolutionary candidates that resonate with voters.

[Mirjt]

I said this before on the first page. Please do not shame people for how they choose to vote or not to vote. It is fine to make the cases for what it would take for Biden to personally win you over, if he even can; or what it would take for Biden to win over progressives, if he even can; or why one should or should not vote for Biden or one of the alternatives to Biden; etc... but please take care that you are not shaming someone for their vote.

Voting Blue to Matter Who, and buying into the lesser evil argument, is completely rational, afterall who gets elected can cause real harm and it can be in your best interests to mitigate that harm. However, it is completely rational to disagree with lesser evilism as well.

Those whom are voting third party, or independent, or write-in are (usually) not trying to win, they are trying to send a message and assert political power (which I think the history suggest third party being the most effective of these tactics). If the major parties believe they will always have your vote because the opposition is worse (they may be bad, but they are not as bad as the opposite major party), then they have no reason to listen to the voters, or to win voters over with good policies and good candidates, and they have no reason to change. If voters vote third party then the major party closest to them will have to win over those third party votes in the next election (and would be incentivized to do so if they cannot guilt these people into returning and if the election was close, win or lose), with ideas and candidates those third party voters like. In addition, just being on the ballot and getting funding, is a good way for third parties to get their message across at least a little.

If the Democratic Party really cared about harm reduction, then they would embrace third party voters for President if that is what it took to get turnout to vote for Democrats (hopefully Progressives) down the ballot. If either of the major parties really cared about the spoiler effect costing them the election, they would get rid of it, by eliminating first-post-the-post-voting with some form of ranked choice or proportional voting; instead they leave it intact because it serve to boost their power and gives them a scapegoat whenever they lose.

Some people may not want to vote for many different reasons:

* They may believe their vote does not matter. This is Down's Paradox (or the Paradox of Voting), where it is irrational for any given individual to go out and vote and spend the time and effort to do so, when their vote is unlikely to be the deciding vote that makes a different in an election, but if you get enough people to agree to act irrationally, it actually does make a difference, and if you fail to get enough people to agree to vote then it may result in an unexpected win for some opposition.

* They may believe their vote is negated by the electoral college. Most Americans live in safe blue or safe red states and that state's electoral votes will probably go to blue or red regardless of how they vote. Under this logic the only voters whose votes matter are the swing states. Noam Chomsky has addressed this by arguing that people should vote third party in safe states, but vote for harm reduction in swing states. It is unfortunate that our system works like this though, but until the Constitution is amended (a nearly impossible tasks today) to abolish the electoral college, or the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact passes (and even if it passes, someone will raise a constitutional challenge to it, and it will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court using its autocratic powers of Judicial Review), we are stuck with it.

* It might not make a different in their lives. For instance many people (and most, if not all, of the people they know) are not going to get healthcare under Biden or Trump, or better jobs, or affordable housing, or any number of things they may need. Why should they vote if it won't make a difference in their lives, and the candidates are literally saying we are just the same old, same old (status quo).

* They may have other concerns than voting, such as the pandemic crisis going on. (Though if we would just allow vote my mail, or some other form of voting from home that leaves a paper trail, then I am sure that some of the pandemic-related concerns to whether one should vote or not would be reduced).

* Some may not want to legitimize electoral politics. They may view it as necessary for there to be direct action, like protests, strikes, marches, and so on, to get any kind of change (after all, historically most major reforms and paradigm shifts did not originate in electoral politics, but from outside forces putting pressure on electoral politics, if they aren't first crushed by the executive branch). If people think that change will come about because of voting, then they are less likely to get involved in movements of direct action, and so voting may actually hurt the chances for change (at least in this line of thought).

[Nouveau Yathrib]

…Why?

As much as I dislike him, he knows how to run a government.

He made the govermment of nyc actually work. He brought in 311 and made it a citywide access # for city services. He centralized computing services in DoIT, and the implementation was an absolute success. He had a citywide pandemic plan that the current moron destroyed. He funded things he thought was important, like the 7 line extension into Hudson yards. He could not be bought, and if he believed in something enough he would pay out of his own pocket to get it done.

Running a country is logistically different from running a city. To me, Bloomberg seemed like the "NationStates IRL" candidate who'd try to implement his policies the way we answer issues in this game. I'm also not sure if he would've turned out voters against Trump in the general election.

[West Leas Oros 2]

As much as I dislike him, he knows how to run a government.

He made the govermment of nyc actually work. He brought in 311 and made it a citywide access # for city services. He centralized computing services in DoIT, and the implementation was an absolute success. He had a citywide pandemic plan that the current moron destroyed. He funded things he thought was important, like the 7 line extension into Hudson yards. He could not be bought, and if he believed in something enough he would pay out of his own pocket to get it done.

Running a country is logistically different from running a city. To me, Bloomberg seemed like the "NationStates IRL" candidate who'd try to implement his policies the way we answer issues in this game. I'm also not sure if he would've turned out voters against Trump in the general election.

This post implies that somewhere, Bloomberg is on NationStates solving issues in his virtual nation.

[Sundiata]

Joe Biden also needs to reconcile his political positions with his professed religious beliefs. He needs to oppose abortion and publicly defend the sanctity of life.

[Gormwood]

Joe Biden also needs to reconcile his political positions with his professed religious beliefs. He needs to oppose abortion and publicly defend the sanctity of life.

Funny how "sanctity of life" lasts until they're actually born at which point they're welfare leeches that need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Joe Biden also needs to reconcile his political positions with his professed religious beliefs. He needs to oppose abortion and publicly defend the sanctity of life.

Funny how "sanctity of life" lasts until they're actually born at which point they're welfare leeches that need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Explain to me exactly where Sundiata said that or gave any indication of supporting that? I’ll wait.

[Sundiata]

Joe Biden also needs to reconcile his political positions with his professed religious beliefs. He needs to oppose abortion and publicly defend the sanctity of life.

Funny how "sanctity of life" lasts until they're actually born at which point they're welfare leeches that need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Well, that isn't the economic perspective of myself or my church. The state has a subsidiary role in the lives of its citizens; it can help eliminate poverty.

[Gormwood]

Funny how "sanctity of life" lasts until they're actually born at which point they're welfare leeches that need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Explain to me exactly where Sundiata said that or gave any indication of supporting that? I’ll wait.

Let's ignore that that's the default pro-birth stance, compounded by the obsession with cutting social spending on top of banning abortion.

[Neanderthaland]

I'm a big fan of game theory. I apply it frequently. That's WHY I don't think this is a good strategy.

Please, explain why.

This is essentially a variation of the prisoner's dilemma, where your goal is to hit a very specific percentage of subjects giving a desired response, and not more or less.

Humans are famously terrible at this.

[Sundiata]

Explain to me exactly where Sundiata said that or gave any indication of supporting that? I’ll wait.

Let's ignore that that's the default pro-birth stance, compounded by the obsession with cutting social spending on top of banning abortion.

That's not where I believe Joe Biden should stand.

While I oppose abortion, I support social spending. That's where a consistent Catholic should stand, and as it goes, where I think Joe Biden should stand as a matter of conscience.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Explain to me exactly where Sundiata said that or gave any indication of supporting that? I’ll wait.

Let's ignore that that's the default pro-birth stance, compounded by the obsession with cutting social spending on top of banning abortion.

Uh-huh. Let’s also ignore that this discussion is about Sundiata’s beliefs on the issue, and your attempt at deflection is at best, disingenuous and in bad faith. Did you literally miss Sundiata’s post on how it’s not the position they hold, nor the one held by their religion?

[Galloism]

Please, explain why.

This is essentially a variation of the prisoner's dilemma, where your goal is to hit a very specific percentage of subjects giving a desired response, and not more or less.

Humans are famously terrible at this.

Notably the fear of a spoiler leading California to go trump is hideously small odds, even before you account for reticence for people to vote for 3rd party.

In 2016, Hilary got 61.73% of the vote while trump got 31.62%.

Presuming that stays the same, in order for Trump to win, the spoiler would have to draw 30.12% of the vote, but not more than 31.62% of the vote, otherwise the spoiler wins, this means a margin of draw of 1.5% where trump could win due to a spoiler.

Naturally, this is very unlikely.

[Gormwood]

Let's ignore that that's the default pro-birth stance, compounded by the obsession with cutting social spending on top of banning abortion.

Uh-huh. Let’s also ignore that this discussion is about Sundiata’s beliefs on the issue, and your attempt at deflection is at best, disingenuous and in bad faith. Did you literally miss Sundiata’s post on how it’s not the position they hold, nor the one held by their religion?

Can you name a place where abortion is banned but comprehensive welfare including child care exists? Going by examples in life here. It's nice that someone actually supports welfare while opposing abortion but the record in the country so far is abysmal.

[Mirjt]

Explain to me exactly where Sundiata said that or gave any indication of supporting that? I’ll wait.

Let's ignore that that's the default pro-birth stance, compounded by the obsession with cutting social spending on top of banning abortion.

Sundiata is referring to the consistent life ethic. It is a set of political stances that are met to be consistent with the Catholic understanding of the sanctity of life, developed by some Catholic priests during the Cold War. It includes being anti-abortion, anti-death-penalty, anti-euthansia (or assisted suicide), anti-war, anti-nuclear-proliferation, and pro-social-spending. It is not strictly a Catholic position, as many non-Catholics also follow the consistent life ethic.

Sundiata is arguing that Biden's policy stances are not in line with consistent life ethic (particularly the anti-abortion plank), and Biden (whom has stated to be a Catholic) getting his policy stances in line with the consistent life ethic, would be part of what it would take for Sundiata to consider voting for Biden. Sundiata if I misunderstood or misrepresented your views in any way, please correct me.

P.S. I used to be a big supporter of the consistent life ethic when I was younger, despite not being a Catholic. I am pro-choice now, and undecided on the assisted suicide question, but I still consider the consistent life ethic to be a respectable position to hold.