Re-read the part about the cyclical nature of elections vs the one-off nature or the choice in the Trolley Problem.
Elections in a fucked up anti-Democratic power-duopoly electoral system like the one in the US are a lot more like a Cyclical Ultimatum Game between voters and the party supposedly closest to their own principles and very little like a Trolley Problem. A “punish now to get a better choice offered in a later round” strategy is not only viable but often the best choice in a Cyclical Ultimatum Game, i.e. when the side that has to accept or reject the candidate put forward is offered a bad one and they know they will play the same role (i.e. vote) in later rounds, but it is not at all a valid or even possible strategy in a Trolley Problem.
The relentless insistence in framing it as a Trolley Problem and thus as a unique once-in-a-lifetime choice which will result in a forever the same outcome that cannot be changed (yet another way it differs from a Trolley Problem - you can change the choice every 4 years), rather than a situation were punishing those choosing the available candidates in one round can change which candidates they put forward in the next round, is a self-serving piece of propaganda from politicians who don’t want voters to punish them for always making available only bad candidates.
Re-read the part about the cyclical nature of elections vs the one-off nature or the choice in the Trolley Problem.
Elections in a fucked up anti-Democratic power-duopoly electoral system like the one in the US are a lot more like a Cyclical Ultimatum Game between voters and the party supposedly closest to their own principles and very little like a Trolley Problem. A “punish now to get a better choice offered in a later round” strategy is not only viable but often the best choice in a Cyclical Ultimatum Game, i.e. when the side that has to accept or reject the candidate put forward is offered a bad one and they know they will play the same role (i.e. vote) in later rounds, but it is not at all a valid or even possible strategy in a Trolley Problem.
The relentless insistence in framing it as a Trolley Problem and thus as a unique once-in-a-lifetime choice which will result in a forever the same outcome that cannot be changed (yet another way it differs from a Trolley Problem - you can change the choice every 4 years), rather than a situation were punishing those choosing the available candidates in one round can change which candidates they put forward in the next round, is a self-serving piece of propaganda from politicians who don’t want voters to punish them for always making available only bad candidates.
You fundamentally don’t understand what elections are, like, on principal
So you’re an accelerationist.
I’m somebody who knows Mathematics and detests manipulation and deceit.