Explain, please.
Someone (you?) posited that since in dark blue states there was no chance that not voting for the Republican would help give the state’s electoral college votes to the Rat, maybe it would be “safe” to vote for Barr as a “protest vote.”
IOW, the idea was that since the Rat was going to win the state’s EC votes anyway, why not vote for a “protest” candidate?
My point was that even though in this situation one’s vote for the Republican would not help the Republican win the state (because the state is too Rat-like), one’s vote still helps determine whether the Republican or Rat wins the NATIONAL popular vote.
Since we heard endlessly last time about how Gore “really” won the election simply because he won the popular vote, it seems to me that unless a person wants to go that far, they should at least consider that their vote for the Republican, even in a state where he has no chance of winning the state, still helps the Republican in the national popular vote.
If the voter cares about such things.