Jill Stien

The statement suggests that voters in a predominantly Democratic state like California should consider voting for a third party if they oppose genocide. It implies a moral obligation tied to political choices, potentially critiquing mainstream parties.

1. Principle 1:

   I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.

   The statement could be seen as harmful by implying that not voting third party equates to supporting genocide, which is a serious accusation. [-2]
2. Principle 3:

   I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.

   The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it simplifies complex political choices into a binary moral issue. [-1]
3. Principle 4:

   I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.

   The statement does not engage in constructive dialogue, as it uses a provocative claim that may alienate rather than encourage discussion. [-1]