One problem with the political system and the way campaigns work is that candidates are expected to make grandiose promises, most of which are things that they couldn’t actually accomplish. For example, almost any candidate will claim that he/she will reduce taxes, either for everyone or for low-income families, but that’s not something that an elected official, even the President of the United States, can do just by deciding to do it. Candidates promise to abolish things that their supporters dislike and to favor causes that their supporters like. They paint beautiful pictures of a world in which they are in the office they’re running for, and don’t acknowledge the fact that the position they want doesn’t give them magical powers. Unfortunately, all candidates have to make these claims just in order to attract voters’ attention and to get people to vote for them. A candidate is only as appealing as the scenario he or she can describe of life under his/her leadership, and any candidate who is realistic in making promises will not be able to win an election.

Therefore, I would like to propose the following premise: All political candidates make promises that they are incapable of keeping.

Figure A

Now, these campaign promises follow the form of conditional statements: “If I am elected, I will do XYZ” where “If I am elected” is the antecedent and “I will do XYZ” is the consequent. In symbolic logic, that can be expressed E horseshoe thingy XYZ. This is helpfully illustrated in the accompanying diagram, labeled Figure A. You are welcome. Logic also dictates that a conditional statement can be true in three ways: If both the antecedent and the consequent are true, if both the antecedent and the consequent are false, or if the antecedent is false and the consequent is true. The only way a conditional statement can be false is if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. That means that any conditional statement with a false antecedent is true, which seems weird, so I have cleared that up with another helpful diagram, labeled Figure B. Again, you are welcome.

Figure B

This, along with my first premise, leads to my second and third premises: All elected politicians have lied. All candidates who have lost have not lied.

My fourth premise stands on its own: I want to vote for a candidate who is not a liar.

And here is the conclusion: Therefore, I should vote for a candidate who I know will not win.

It’s a stupid argument, but technically it’s logical, right? (This point is illustrated in yet another helpful diagram, labeled Figure C. Once more, you are welcome.)

Figure C

Note: I do actually intend to vote for a third party candidate, but this isn’t the real reason.