Hi! I’m a mathematician. I specialize in creating logical arguments as well as finding and explaining the flaws thereof. The Black and White fallacy does not apply here. First, we need to keep in mind the principle of charity, whereby we try to figure out what was meant by our interlocutors when we argue with them, as far as we can by what they said. In this case, the argument here is not literally that all votes that are for someone other than Biden are instead counted for Trump (this premise would have a great many flaws far beyond the fallacy you gave) rather, it is a statement of the failures of certain voting strategies which are well-established mathematical facts. Specifically, if you prefer candidate A over candidate B, and all other candidates have a combined extremely small chance of winning, choosing not to vote for candidate A is effectively making candidate B’s victory more likely.
If you vote for anyone else other than Biden, it increases Trumps chance to win (due to a lower amount of total votes for Biden) since we are a 2 party system even though we pretend we aren’t. Is this not widely known? We know it’s not a literal vote for Trump, but it might as well be a theoretical one.
since we are a 2 party system even though we pretend we aren’t
De-jure we are a multi-party system. De-facto we are a 2 party system.
If you vote for anyone else other than Biden, it increases Trumps chance to win […] We know it’s not a literal vote for Trump, but it might as well be a theoretical one.
Without splitting any further hairs, yes; that’s essentially correct.
Hi! I’m a mathematician. I specialize in creating logical arguments as well as finding and explaining the flaws thereof. The Black and White fallacy does not apply here. First, we need to keep in mind the principle of charity, whereby we try to figure out what was meant by our interlocutors when we argue with them, as far as we can by what they said. In this case, the argument here is not literally that all votes that are for someone other than Biden are instead counted for Trump (this premise would have a great many flaws far beyond the fallacy you gave) rather, it is a statement of the failures of certain voting strategies which are well-established mathematical facts. Specifically, if you prefer candidate A over candidate B, and all other candidates have a combined extremely small chance of winning, choosing not to vote for candidate A is effectively making candidate B’s victory more likely.
Hope that clears things up.
If you vote for anyone else other than Biden, it increases Trumps chance to win (due to a lower amount of total votes for Biden) since we are a 2 party system even though we pretend we aren’t. Is this not widely known? We know it’s not a literal vote for Trump, but it might as well be a theoretical one.
It is, in fact, widely known.
De-jure we are a multi-party system. De-facto we are a 2 party system.
Without splitting any further hairs, yes; that’s essentially correct.