Is it logically fallacious for someone to say not voting for Biden is helping Trump. If so, what is the name of that fallacy and the underlying reason? Could it be a false dilemma or a non-sequitur? Thanks in advance.
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Comments on Question
Answers
2A big issue with first past the post voting is that it encourages a two party system where voting for anyone else splits the vote in favour of the party whose voters are more unified in ideology (in this case republicans and not voting often does the same, especially if the other party actively relies on voter apathy, gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics to reduce the number of eligible voters who would vote against them. This was especially apparent in the 2016 election and this election also has some pretty blatant voter suppression like sabotaging mail in voting.
The statement is accurate but is missing its supporting arguments when presented alone.
Let's think this through. Are there any cases where this might be true? I can think of a 3rd party liberal running, taking away votes for Biden, therefore, helping Trump. In this case, it is not the "non-vote" that is helping Trump, it is the change of vote that is. So in this case, the "not voting for Biden" overlaps with "was going to vote for Biden," which certainly helps trump. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Now let's look at the case where someone isn't voting for Biden because they never were going to (they don't vote, they always vote libertarian, etc.). This is not helping Trump any more than it is helping Biden.
Finally, let's look at the more likely case that also helps Trump: the liberal voter who votes democrat, but is "abstaining" because they don't like Biden. Yes, this helps Trump. This is a major strategy of the Trump campaign: to get voters to hate/distrust Biden. Clearly, it helps Trump.
In summary, one must look at more than just the non-vote, but the reason and details behind the non-vote to assess if this is a reasonable statement or not.
I see no fallacies here. Generally, this is just a failure to think critically and/or over simplify.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Let me push back on some of the things you said, Dr. Bennett. You mentioned the “change of vote” is helping Trump. What does this mean? The voter, and let’s just say he is a Democrat, hasn’t even gone to the polls to cast a vote. How can a vote that hasn’t been casted yet already belong to a specific candidate? It’s as if the voter does not have full control over their vote. Without taking any action yet, that voter is in a predicament where they either must vote for Biden and avoid the condemnation of “taking a vote away from him,” because that vote was supposedly already on it’s way for him or the voter can choose another candidate, like Hawkins, but by doing so, the voter is somehow “taking a vote away from Biden.”
This scenario makes it sound like there are loyalties involved. The voter is a fan of Team A and he decides to betray them and go to Team C. Isn’t the voter more like an employer and Biden more like a employee applicant? The burden would be on the employee applicant to prove to his potential employer that he is the best man for the job. If he didn’t do it, then he fell short. It’s on him. Whether the employer was leaning in his direction before the interview or another employee applicant (Trump) wants the employer not to hire that applicant (Biden) are irrelevant to the final outcome if that employer wants to pick the best person for the job. We cannot say the employer took away a job from the employee, unless he actually promised him that job or took some action to make him reasonably think that he was going to get that job.
Also, if by the word “help,” we mean to say that one Democratic voter’s vote will make a difference in the decisive outcome, it would not. It would just mean one vote less for Biden. Individual voters don’t act as a voting bloc. That would be a false assumption. Anyway, it is extremely improbable that the election would come down to one vote, but if it did, the election would go to the Supreme Court and they would decide it. The decision would simply depend on who was on the court and where their partisanship lies, not on whether one candidate got one more vote than the other.
Now, we are talking about an individual, but let’s say this is not just an individual. They are one of the few people in society that are highly influential and can persuade tens of thousands of others (Democrats) to vote just like him for a third party candidate (Hawkins). Is this influential voter “helping” Trump. If one is to say he is helping Trump, isn’t that shifting the burden of proof? Why can’t one say the candidate (Biden) is helping Trump? People make it sound like there is nothing that that candidate can do. His platform is like the Earth going around the sun and nothing can be done about it. If the candidate is a decent politician, then he would do what other candidates have done in the past which is adopting an issue or two from the third party and thereby undermining the third party’s platform and winning over many of their potential voters. The candidate is not powerless. So if he refuses to make those changes, then the burden is on him, not on the influential voter who is practicing democracy.