I dunno, I mean, I haven't heard much in general of like, good faith advocacy for the position of not voting, but I can sort of see the logic behind the idea that, voting polls are used for reflections on the voting population, used as data for analysis by political parties. So I can sort of see the logic that, say, if you live in a state that's pretty much guaranteed to go blue, or what have you, it might make sense to, either not vote, or vote for some alternative third party candidate. I think, you know, while, simultaneously a lot of bitching was done about bernie being a vote-stealer, I think there's probably some case to be made that his candidacy, and his political advocacy, has done a good amount to bring, if not leftism and anticapitalism, at least, leftist positions, into the mainstream.

It's maybe debatable as to whether establishment democrats have decided to adopt these positions in more than just lip service, but I think it's still probably useful even if we're just talking about the presentation of these non-mainstream opinions to the public. Maybe not, it's hard to tell, but, if I were to like, try and play devil's advocate, and try to construct a legitimate position along, not voting, or protest votes, I'd probably do so around that, right. Around the idea that, through FPTP voting, gerrymandering, and the electoral college, right, all these shitty, anti-democratic mechanisms that everyone can agree needs reform, there's maybe some level of like, leeway that could be juiced for more organized protest votes that would serve some level of party reform. I'm not sure if that position really holds up to scrutiny, there's a lot of IFs and assumptions there, but if I were to argue the position, that's probably how I would. I think that's a position that holds up to scrutiny more than, noooo, biden is bombing gaza, or, noooo, your vote for biden would otherwise have prevented trump, right, because it actually deals with the political reality at hand, rather than suffering under this delusion that we have a functional electoral system, or everyone's votes are equally weighted, or that some states aren't basically guaranteed to be won in one direction or the other.

I think my evidence of most of the arguers being in bad faith, I guess, or, only serving their own internal propagandist goals, right, is mostly just in how I have very rarely, and very rarely with any level of engagement, seen anyone sort of, elaborate, or even contest the validity of, arguments such as the previous one I've just proposed. It's all surface level stuff, as far as the eye can see. At least, insofar as I've peeped. There's no strategic concerns, it's just garbage.