“Having an honest look at a candidates voting record means I want Trump to be President again.”
No, refusing to vote for Mr. Biden if he becomes the nominee is tantamount to preferring Mr. Trump. Here’s the logic:
Suppose that Mr. Biden is the Democratic nominee and you refuse to vote for him and instead cast your vote for a third party. Suppose also that a second person did the same thing you did. Suppose further that Mr. Trump wins the election in your state by one vote, and thereby wins the Presidency. This means that your decision, along with that other person’s decision, handed the Presidency to Mr. Trump. You would be 50% responsible for all the bad things that Mr. Trump would then do.
Yes, that scenario is wildly unlikely, but now suppose that there were three people who refused to vote for Mr. Biden. That would distribute the moral responsibility for the outcome among three people, hence your personal responsibility would be only 33.33%. This establishes a simple conclusion: your moral responsibility for the election of Mr. Trump would be inversely proportional to the number of people required to hand the election to Mr. Trump. I saw a calculation somewhere that Mr. Trump won the 2016 election by something like 80,000 votes. That means that each of those voters bears 0.00125% of the moral responsibility for Mr. Trump’s election. That might not seem like much, but if Mr. Trump’s policies kill 80,000 people, then each of those 80,000 swing voters bears moral responsibility for one death.
There are some rather complicated objections to this calculation, as it is the most extreme way of calculating one’s moral responsibilities as a citizen. At the opposite extreme is the grossest calculation: since 60 million people voted for Mr. Trump, each person who didn’t vote for Ms. Clinton bears one sixty-millionth of the moral responsibility for the effects of his Presidency. This might seem like a vanishingly small amount of responsibility. But if the difference between Mr. Trump’s policies and Ms. Clinton’s policies proves to be catastrophic — as could well be the case with global warming — then even one sixty-millionth of the total moral responsibility is likely greater than that of a murderer.
These calculations are not probative, but indicative of considerations you sweep under the rug. Your error lies in the assumption that, because you are only one voter, and your vote will not BY ITSELF determine the outcome of the election, your vote has no moral responsibility attached to it. You perceive your vote to be no different than putting up a yard sign for a candidate or wearing a button saying “Vote for ____!” I maintain that one’s vote is indeed a matter of moral responsibility, and that you ARE morally responsible for the consequences of the vote you cast.
That’s the key point here, so I’m going to rephrase it as a question to you:
Do you consider yourself morally responsible for the consequences of the vote you cast?
“But by all means keep commenting! At least I get paid when you do 😊”
More power to you. I, however, do not write for material gain; I write for moral consequence.