3 ms·

Your argument basically revolves around two points. One is that if you feel one candidate represents your views, then you need to vote for that candidate. That'

Your argument basically revolves around two points. One is that if you feel one candidate represents your views, then you need to vote for that candidate. That's absolutely, 100% fine and what you should do! I am speaking to the people who don't find their views fit with either candidate, or the negatives outweigh the positives so much, that they feel they are not given a real choice, which is not really true. The second point you are trying to make is saying that you should only vote for a viable candidate, which is like saying you should only cheer for a sports team that has a viable chance of winning a championship. That's ridiculous, and just passive aggressive bullying to get people to feel they need to vote for a candidate you support. People should be free to vote with their hearts for whomever they feel best represents their interests. If the candidate they vote for loses, fine, that's the democratic process, and has a 50% chance of happening anyways if you vote for a 'viable' candidate. If someone feels they have to vote for the candidate who is going to win, that's something more akin to countries like Venezuela or Iran, where there are elections, but we all know how much choice people are actually given in those places.

HelloMcFly 10y ago
> One is that if you feel one candidate represents your views, then you need to vote for that candidate. That is not what I said, though I don't necessarily disagree. I am making the argument that voting is a self-interested exercise one way or the other; even voting for the "greater good" is an exercise in personal self-interest. So if you evaluate the two candidates who have any chance of winning and find a significant difference in how you and your peers' lives will be affected, then it's rational to vote for one of those candidates even if your views align better to a non-viable third-party candidate. > The second point you are trying to make is saying that you should only vote for a viable candidate No, that is again not what I am saying or have said. You're inferring something I'm not implying. Everyone should vote how they want to vote. What I don't like is the philosophical grandstanding about how if one doesn't really like either candidate that they should not vote or vote third-party, or that voting third-party or abstaining is some symbol of moral strength or "rightness." It's easy to laud the nobility of voting third party or abstaining, futility of outcome or not, when you view the outcome of either viable candidate as basically equivalent. But they aren't equivalent, especially to certain subgroups of people. You specifically encouraged people not to vote for "evil candidates"; if you meant the word "evil" literally then fine, ignore this. But I don't think you did, and therefore I found your suggestion quite distasteful.

HelloMcFly 10y ago

> One is that if you feel one candidate represents your views, then you need to vote for that candidate. That is not what I said, though I don't necessarily disagree. I am making the argument that voting is a self-interested exercise one way or the other; even voting for the "greater good" is an exercise in personal self-interest. So if you evaluate the two candidates who have any chance of winning and find a significant difference in how you and your peers' lives will be affected, then it's rational to vote for one of those candidates even if your views align better to a non-viable third-party candidate. > The second point you are trying to make is saying that you should only vote for a viable candidate No, that is again not what I am saying or have said. You're inferring something I'm not implying. Everyone should vote how they want to vote. What I don't like is the philosophical grandstanding about how if one doesn't really like either candidate that they should not vote or vote third-party, or that voting third-party or abstaining is some symbol of moral strength or "rightness." It's easy to laud the nobility of voting third party or abstaining, futility of outcome or not, when you view the outcome of either viable candidate as basically equivalent. But they aren't equivalent, especially to certain subgroups of people. You specifically encouraged people not to vote for "evil candidates"; if you meant the word "evil" literally then fine, ignore this. But I don't think you did, and therefore I found your suggestion quite distasteful.