4 ms·
This kind of thinking helps nothing. If you are outraged, push to change it. If you seriously think the best way to do that is to not vote for Hillary, I'd love
by duaneb 10y ago
This kind of thinking helps nothing. If you are outraged, push to change it. If you seriously think the best way to do that is to not vote for Hillary, I'd love to hear your reasoning.
- wvrvwwwe 10y agoYou can not vote for Clinton and push to change drug laws, they're not mutually exclusive.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- iconjack 10y agoI am outraged by the drug war, therefore I will not vote for a drug warrior. Not sure what else to say.
- LyndsySimon 10y agoI wouldn't worry about it much - there are a lot of us out there who aren't exactly "single-issue voters", but for whom a single issue can make a candidate completely unpalatable. For me, that's guns. For you, that's drugs. For many others, it's abortion.
- hutzlibu 10y agoJust curious, pro or against guns? I suppose against, meaning you want a candidat who wants tight regulation?
- LyndsySimon 10y agoI was purposefully vague :) I'm very, very pro-gun.
- hobs 10y agoLast time I checked Clinton promised to move marijuana to schedule II, not do anything like pledge to end the completely pointless war on drugs. Do you have millions in donations to a campaign or millions of followers to vote for your cause? Then I wouldn't hold your breath "pushing for change" within a campaign on either side of the aisle because your opinion simply doesn't matter to them.
- rweir 10y agowell then lobby to get your electoral system fixed instead of copping out. not voting for Hillary Clinton increases the chances of Trump winning, and who even knows what his actual policy on drugs are?
- hobs 10y agoTo be clear I was not a Bernie supporter either(since you mention lobbying the electoral system), I just used the MJ example because it was easy and at hand. I do not support Trump either. By voting for someone I support, I am not voting anyone else into office, that is up to their supporters.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- SapphireSun 10y agoThat makes sense emotionally, but in reality in FPTP you just enabled the even worse other party. If you want your voice fairly represented, you'll need other voting mechanisms and non-partisan districting mechanisms. Your wish is legitimate, but unfortunately the current system limits your useful actions.
- nitrogen 10y agoThere's no mathematical reason why the two winning parties in FPTP have to be the same two parties forever. It is the media coverage that makes it so, and concerted voting for a single third party could make that party part of a new duopoly.