Words Next To Each Other: The Case For Consumerist Wank Voting

Susan Sarandon argues that she was totally vindicated:

But she didn’t advocate voting for Hillary! Come on.

“Hmm?”

Didn’t she advocate voting for Jill Stein?

“I didn’t advocate people voting for anything. I said get your information, I’m going to vote for change, because I was hoping that Stein was going to get whatever percentage she needed – but I knew she wasn’t going to make the difference in the election.”

Suggested follow-up: “needed to do what?”

Anyway, Sarandon is completely lying about what she actually said during the election:

I’m therefore very happy to endorse Jill Stein for the presidency because she does stand for everything I believe in.

It’s clear a third party is necessary and viable at this time. And this is the first step in accomplishing this end.

Fear of Donald Trump is not enough for me to support Clinton, with her record of corruption.

Now that Trump is self-destructing, I feel even those in swing states have the opportunity to vote their conscience.

But this is always the classic two-step of people who advocate wank voting: “WE NEED A THIRD PARTY” always seamlessly pivots to “don’t worry, supporting this buffoon won’t actually have any consequences.” The two-step in inevitable because third-party voting at the federal level is an action with major downsides and no upside whatsoever, so advocates of third party voting almost never have the courage of their convictions but retreat into incoherent gibberish whenever people bring up consequentialist concerns.

It’s true that Stein didn’t ultimately succeed in her goal of throwing the election to Trump; it’s also true that this isn’t a defense of her actions. And it also isn’t a defense of prominent people who told swing-state voters to effectively support Donald Trump.