3 ms·

> That's simply handled by saying that they should vote. So people should vote for somebody, anybody, even though they'd rather not vote for any of the offered

by ElFitz 7y ago

> That's simply handled by saying that they should vote. So people should vote for somebody, anybody, even though they'd rather not vote for any of the offered options ? Pick the ones the less indifferent to them? Pick the ones they don't believe in the least? Pick the ones they believe to be the less corrupt? Pick the ones the least likely to cause them the most harm? I don't know the origin of most of these people's motivation not to vote, or their lack of motivation to vote, but it is quite telling that they won't take a few hours every few years to pick who they believe should have what is supposed to be the most important and impactful job in their country. And that, in itself, is a choice. A worrying one. A disheartening one. One that says "None of this, and none of these people, are worth even a couple hours of my life". A choice made by many, too many, that some discard saying "That's simply handled by saying that they should vote", when they already did.

SkyBelow 7y ago
>So people should vote for somebody, anybody, even though they'd rather not vote for any of the offered options ? The offered options are numerous. That most people who do vote only want two of the group and thus no one else even has a chance is part of democracy in action, and perhaps a view as to what is wrong with such a system. For long term gains, people who don't vote can try to push for the most popular third party candidate to shake up the system. If enough win, they may support voting reform that will change how votes are counted. There are also other options. For example, convincing other people to not vote. I honestly do not see why this is viewed as bad. If my argument can't convince someone to vote for the one I think will do a good job but can convince them to not vote for one of the ones I think will do a bad job, why not use that argument? >And that, in itself, is a choice. A worrying one. A disheartening one. Is it much different than people who skip out on jury duty instead of getting to make sure the 'facts' align with their own view of reality? People are overall too complacent, which may just be an indictment that things are still going well enough.

by ElFitz 7y ago

SkyBelow 7y ago

>So people should vote for somebody, anybody, even though they'd rather not vote for any of the offered options ? The offered options are numerous. That most people who do vote only want two of the group and thus no one else even has a chance is part of democracy in action, and perhaps a view as to what is wrong with such a system. For long term gains, people who don't vote can try to push for the most popular third party candidate to shake up the system. If enough win, they may support voting reform that will change how votes are counted. There are also other options. For example, convincing other people to not vote. I honestly do not see why this is viewed as bad. If my argument can't convince someone to vote for the one I think will do a good job but can convince them to not vote for one of the ones I think will do a bad job, why not use that argument? >And that, in itself, is a choice. A worrying one. A disheartening one. Is it much different than people who skip out on jury duty instead of getting to make sure the 'facts' align with their own view of reality? People are overall too complacent, which may just be an indictment that things are still going well enough.