You are correct that, mathematically (and logically), if A < B then B > A. Once a person admits that the Democrat is worse than the Republican in a particular election in which either the Democrat or the Republican might win and no other result is possible, then it would be illogical for such person not to vote for the Republican.
The threshold question is whether the Democrat is indeed worse than the Republican, in the sense that the Republican might do more damage if elected than the Democrat would (because the Republican would give a “bipartisan” veneer to liberal legislation, or the election of that Republican would make it more difficult for a better Republican to be elected the next time than if the Democrat had won, and a few other scenarios. My experience has been that, once it is established that Democrat A is worse than Republican B on the issues, that 99 times out of 100 it is preferable for Republican B to be elected. The tiny boost that Democrats get when a “Republican” endorses a liberal bill is far less than the boost they get by having yet another Democrat in the body. And the theory that it is easier for a better Republican to beat an incumbent Democrat in the general election than it is for a conservative Republican to defeat a liberal Republican in the primary only works in districts that are safely Republican and where a non-incumbent liberal Republican would be disfavored in the primary but an incumbent liberal Republican would be favored in the primary.
And any benefit a strategically minded conservative voter might get by voting for the Democrat over the Republican is inversely proportional to the length of the term for which the candidates are vying. It might be worth it for a conservative voter to elect a Democrat over a liberal Republican for the six months remaining in a term if it would improve the odds of a conservative Republican being elected to the ful term (assuming that the district would be willing to elect a conservative Republican, and that a Democrat incumbent wouldn’t have the advantage in the general); but it would be idiotic to elect a Democrat to a six-year senate term merely because of faint hopes that six years later one might be able to elect a conservative Republican, since after six years the damage might be done (look at Obamcare, judicial confirmations, etc.).
So once a voter has determined that candidate A is worse than candidate B, he should vote for candidate B, almost without exception. And in such a scenario, it makes no sense for a voter ever to leave the ballot blank. (The only exception that I can think of is the TN gubernatorial race, where leaving the gubernatorial ballot blank would reduce the number of votes cast for governor, thus increasing the number of votes needed to adopt a pro-life constitutional amendment, and in any event the Republican governor will be reelected easily over the hapless Democrat nominee.)
I wouldn’t say I’m a constructivist but your “logic” is socially constructed And motivated.
yes
but what is the problem in pro-life circles?
exhibit A
Pro-Life GOP runs vs. LIB DEM in a FEB special election for a vacant State Senate seat. Director of Pro-Life Ministries for the Hartford Archdiocese stays home. As does much of the churchgoing crowd.
Pro-Lifer wins regardless.
exhibit B
Pro-Life GOP runs for re-election vs. LIB Naral DEM in a 2012 general election for the State Senate seat. Director of Pro-Life Ministries for the Hartford Archdiocese shows up. As does much of the churchgoing crowd.
Pro-Lifer loses regardless, 50.25% to 49.75. 200 vote margin of 40,000 voters.
Yet the real results are 46.75 to 46.25 to 7%. Is the 7% a third party soiler? No, it is the undervote. Almost 3000 people in the race leave the vote blank for state Senate ... with a 200 vote margin.
Those people are disproportionately pro=lifers and/or the religious crowd. If they vote wrong, it is a sin. If a liberal votes wrong, it is not a sin. Religion is an impediment on completing the task.
My objective is to prove that blank voter is never logical. SO whenever, somebody comes on here to bash the GOP candidate, I tell them that if such candidate is as bad as they say ... logic would be to vote DEM.
At that point they should either agree to vote DEM or agree to shut up.
Can you imagine going to a black church and urging all to not vote ...? They would see it as an overt suppression effort, a la Ed Rollins. But here, it is tolerated.