ok, so I think we established that you want the Rat to lose. That you think it is better if the Rat loses.
But on the one ballot you get ... you are not putting a vote against him. Hmmm.
The ballot is going to be used to determine the winner. And there is no vote against the Rat. I guess .... I don’t see the logic. Seems oxymoronic or something.
A < B, but B not > A. Therefore, A = B.
If you want the Rat to lose, it is imperative to vote against him.
I understand if there is only one possibility because the race is already over ... then it doesn’t matter because the ballot isn’t be used to determine the winner. Needs further study.
what about 92 ? Am I making progress?
obviously, I can never prove the truth of advocating for none-of-the-above voting because it is a falsehood. You can disprove a falsehood by trying every conceivable way to prove it is true. When all fail, you have shown that it cannot be proven, all proofs are false. And, therefore, the theory of none-of-the-above voting is false.
I tried to prove the truth of none-of-the-above voting. I could not, because it cannot be proven. Therefore, it is false.