5 ms·

Stop voting for someone and start voting against someone. Pick the least worst candidate and give them your vote.

hueving 10y ago
It's sort of the train switch moral question. If you hate them both but hate one slight more, voting for the lesser hated one makes you morally responsible for the shit they cause in some peoples' view (as opposed to being a bystander).
- danieltillett 10y ago
  No by not voting you are implicitly giving them half a vote each. You don't get to opt out of the decision of who wins by not voting.
  - choward 10y ago
    Let's say hypothetically your two options to vote for have the same motives but take different stances on relatively unimportant issues. The issues that actually matter aren't discussed. The only issues that are discussed are the ones that stir up people's emotions. By voting you are just supporting this system and saying everything is okay. "Oh, look. 90% voter turnout. Everything is great." I'd much rather not have my vote counted then vote for someone I despise. "Hmm, 10% voter turnout. Something must be wrong." Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > I'd much rather not have my vote counted then vote for someone I despise. "Hmm, 10% voter turnout. Something must be wrong." Empirically, low turnout as a signal that something is wrong which provokes some kind of change to correct it doesn't work very well. > Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent. Encouraging people to not vote because eventually that will signal that something is wrong and produce positive change is a lot worse. Vote-for-one voting is still a ranked-preference method, its just one with only two ranks, and a restriction that only one candidate can be put in the first rank. It provides some (though often less than you'd like) input into social decisionmaking. Abstention, in any voting system, is simply expressing absolute indifference between the available options -- it doesn't mean that you dislike them all, you could just like them all equally. It provides no useful signal into social decisionmaking. If you are actually indifferent, that's fine, but signaling indifference when what you really want to say is that you are not indifferent, but also not happy with your choices, is probably not what you want. If you don't like the choices you get at general elections, there are ways to signal that that are far more effective than not voting. (The weakest and most basic of which is voting in primary elections or whatever the equivalent is.)
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent. The alternative is the worse candidate get half your vote. If you really are indifferent to which ever candidate wins (i.e. they are both equally bad) then don’t vote. If you do think one is worse than the other then you need to vote to express this opinion.
  - laxatives 10y ago
    No it really isn't. This is some very basic math that you are getting completely wrong for the sake of an argument. I'm not increasing either candidates popularity by not voting. If anything, I'm implicitly decreasing both of their popularities.
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      No really you are getting the maths wrong. Try looking at it from the perspective of the politician. What do they think. This is what matters.
- LionessLover 10y ago
  > It's sort of the train switch moral question. No it isn't.
- LionessLover 10y ago
  > It's sort of the train switch moral question. No it's not. You are stupid.
  - dang 10y ago
    Personal attacks like this aren't allowed on HN. We ban accounts that do this. Please read the site guidelines and post civilly and substantively, only: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
laxatives 10y ago
No that isn't a solution or comprimise I'm comfortable with. I'm not saying itst my responsibility to cut losses and do what's best for everyone. I'm saying this system is broken and I won't be a part of it.
- chiaro 10y ago
  >I won't be a part of it. You are though, mate. You don't have a choice in the matter.
  - sverige 10y ago
    Yes, I do have a choice to not participate by not voting. In Soviet Union, party crush people like me since hurts lie that all support them.
    - chiaro 10y ago
      ...and in Capitalist America, party ignores people like you since indistinguishable from apathy and laziness.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Unless you give up your citizenship and leave the country you are part of the political process. Yes you might believe the system is broken, but by not voting you are saying you don’t care and you are effectively giving half a vote each to the top two candidates. I am sure this is not what you intended to do. If all the choices on offer are so bad that you can’t choose a candidate to vote against then write in a candidate. In my experience it is very rare that both candidates are equally bad and you can’t choose the least worst option.
  - sverige 10y ago
    To address your first assertion, I am a citizen whether I vote or not. By not voting, I am consciously choosing not to be part of the political process, at least that part of the process where I vouch for a politician by giving them my vote. And I can't name a single person I want to associate my name with by voting for them.

It's sort of the train switch moral question. If you hate them both but hate one slight more, voting for the lesser hated one makes you morally responsible for the shit they cause in some peoples' view (as opposed to being a bystander).

danieltillett 10y ago
No by not voting you are implicitly giving them half a vote each. You don't get to opt out of the decision of who wins by not voting.
- choward 10y ago
  Let's say hypothetically your two options to vote for have the same motives but take different stances on relatively unimportant issues. The issues that actually matter aren't discussed. The only issues that are discussed are the ones that stir up people's emotions. By voting you are just supporting this system and saying everything is okay. "Oh, look. 90% voter turnout. Everything is great." I'd much rather not have my vote counted then vote for someone I despise. "Hmm, 10% voter turnout. Something must be wrong." Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I'd much rather not have my vote counted then vote for someone I despise. "Hmm, 10% voter turnout. Something must be wrong." Empirically, low turnout as a signal that something is wrong which provokes some kind of change to correct it doesn't work very well. > Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent. Encouraging people to not vote because eventually that will signal that something is wrong and produce positive change is a lot worse. Vote-for-one voting is still a ranked-preference method, its just one with only two ranks, and a restriction that only one candidate can be put in the first rank. It provides some (though often less than you'd like) input into social decisionmaking. Abstention, in any voting system, is simply expressing absolute indifference between the available options -- it doesn't mean that you dislike them all, you could just like them all equally. It provides no useful signal into social decisionmaking. If you are actually indifferent, that's fine, but signaling indifference when what you really want to say is that you are not indifferent, but also not happy with your choices, is probably not what you want. If you don't like the choices you get at general elections, there are ways to signal that that are far more effective than not voting. (The weakest and most basic of which is voting in primary elections or whatever the equivalent is.)
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent. The alternative is the worse candidate get half your vote. If you really are indifferent to which ever candidate wins (i.e. they are both equally bad) then don’t vote. If you do think one is worse than the other then you need to vote to express this opinion.
- laxatives 10y ago
  No it really isn't. This is some very basic math that you are getting completely wrong for the sake of an argument. I'm not increasing either candidates popularity by not voting. If anything, I'm implicitly decreasing both of their popularities.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    No really you are getting the maths wrong. Try looking at it from the perspective of the politician. What do they think. This is what matters.
LionessLover 10y ago
> It's sort of the train switch moral question. No it isn't.
LionessLover 10y ago
> It's sort of the train switch moral question. No it's not. You are stupid.
- dang 10y ago
  Personal attacks like this aren't allowed on HN. We ban accounts that do this. Please read the site guidelines and post civilly and substantively, only: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

laxatives 10y ago

No that isn't a solution or comprimise I'm comfortable with. I'm not saying itst my responsibility to cut losses and do what's best for everyone. I'm saying this system is broken and I won't be a part of it.

chiaro 10y ago
>I won't be a part of it. You are though, mate. You don't have a choice in the matter.
- sverige 10y ago
  Yes, I do have a choice to not participate by not voting. In Soviet Union, party crush people like me since hurts lie that all support them.
  - chiaro 10y ago
    ...and in Capitalist America, party ignores people like you since indistinguishable from apathy and laziness.
danieltillett 10y ago
Unless you give up your citizenship and leave the country you are part of the political process. Yes you might believe the system is broken, but by not voting you are saying you don’t care and you are effectively giving half a vote each to the top two candidates. I am sure this is not what you intended to do. If all the choices on offer are so bad that you can’t choose a candidate to vote against then write in a candidate. In my experience it is very rare that both candidates are equally bad and you can’t choose the least worst option.
- sverige 10y ago
  To address your first assertion, I am a citizen whether I vote or not. By not voting, I am consciously choosing not to be part of the political process, at least that part of the process where I vouch for a politician by giving them my vote. And I can't name a single person I want to associate my name with by voting for them.