Er, except I provided solid evidence to back up my valid assumptions. You, on the other hand, have not.
Your definition of evidence as 'this is how people voted and if more voted it would be different because" is not evidence. It’s speculation. I on the other hand need no evidence since I am not trying to prove anything. I’m simply stating that I think voting is immoral and violent.
You seem incapable of viewing this issue outside the boundaries of a voting system and partisanship.
When you say lesser of two evils I’m floored. My entire point here is that the system is evil, corrupt, violent, etc and that the moral stance is to effect change outside this paradigm. Yet you are happy to vote for evil since it seems less evil than another choice (as if you only had 2 (and I’m not talking 3rd parties here (but it’s unlikely you will get that))). Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil. You know that right?
Let me point out the basic fallacy in your reasoning.
You assume that a higher voter turnout would result in more Democrats being elected which you see as good and lower voter turnout results in more Republicans, which is bad.
However, in the latest elections, more people voted Republican. An unbiased observer might point out that increasing the numbers only increases the total number of votes and not the percentages for any given party.
Secondarily, you seem to believe that the only true path to citizen participation is in the legitimization of a two party system bought and paid for by big money. Failure to vote for one of the prescribed candidates is harmful in your view which in my mind is at once myopic and phobic.
I have no interest in becoming mired in your hatred of certain parties or party members. I invite you to read The Ethics of Voting by Jason Brennan, The Immorality of Democratic Voting by Kel Kelly, Consent to Tyranny: Voting in the USA by Mark E Smith, and Your Obligation to Not Vote by Alex R. Knight III so that you may gain some basic understanding of the issue beyond your partisan talking points. If you can demonstrate a basic understanding of positive rights vs negative rights and how that applies to our current situation, then we may have enough common ground to have a rational discussion. Otherwise, your repeating over used talking points and basing your arguments on strained logic serves nothing but your own ego. You can stroke that on your own
And yes, you are a partisan. Anyone who reads your rants can clearly see that. Taking stock of yourself is called for at this point because you seem to be living in a self delusion of objectivity without even realizing how impossible that is. At this point, I don’t think you even have the tools to discuss this in any other way than oft repeated talking points and the common narrative of the state.
