Just over half of interviewees (51%) in a Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University study, who identified as “people of faith,” responded that they are likely to vote in the presidential election between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. The “people of faith” label is given to those who identify with a recognized religion, such as Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism or Islam.
The study found that approximately 104 million people under the “people of faith” umbrella are not expected to vote this election, including 41 million born-again Christians and 32 million who regularly go to church.
That’s the most common misconception. Not voting for your guy does NOT mean a vote for other guy.
Here is an example:
Let’s say you don’t want candidate B to win but you chose to not vote against B and just sit at home or write in your dog’s name instead.
Candidate A: gets 1000 votes
Candidate B: gets 1002 votes
100 people like you didn’t vote or wrote their dog’s name on ballot.
B wins!
This is what I meant by “actively voting against” vs just not voting.
By your own logic if A wins by 1 vote and you chose not to vote for your guy, B, you essentially gave your vote to A. Good job.
When I don’t vote in the upcoming US elections, my lack of a vote will not become one vote for either candidate. I will cast no votes, and the fact of my existence will not be measured on any ballot or counting system.
By not voting for the candidate you prefer, the candidate you prefer gets one fewer votes. That’s it.
That is accurate in a theoretical bubble, but in practice, in a two party system, in an incredibly close race, it’s simply not true.
So not voting for your guy (candidate A) lead to the other guy (candidate B) winning. Seems like you agree with the premise that in our 2 party system, not voting for the candidate you want directly helps the candidate you don’t want.