4 ms·

> So you expect roughly 50% of people to hate you, and for you to hate about 50% of people? You don't have to vote either Republican or Democrat. Third-parties

> So you expect roughly 50% of people to hate you, and for you to hate about 50% of people? You don't have to vote either Republican or Democrat. Third-parties, write-ins, and simply abstaining in protest are all perfectly valid alternatives which would get you out of that 50%. I more-or-less agree with the GP here: If you vote for a candidate knowing that they will use the power you give them in ways which are harmful to others, you're contributing to the problem. That's true even in FPTP voting systems where the winner will almost certainly have an (R) or (D) next to their name no matter what you do. Overall turnout (voter engagement) and the percentage that actually voted for the winning candidate both matter even if they don't change the official result of the election.

giantg2 4y ago
Yes, you don't need to be part of the 50%, but that doesn't get you away from that effect of the 50% either. There are causes in both major parties that someone is likely to find themselves on the receiving end of some law or regulation that they don't like. So you could still end up opposing that 50% if you're lumping them all in with the politician on that side. "If you vote for a candidate knowing that they will use the power you give them in ways which are harmful to others, you're contributing to the problem." Can you name any candidate that wouldn't harm any group? It seems they all have ideas about what laws would make things better, and those laws tend to involve control of people's actions or inactions.
- nybble41 4y ago
  > Can you name any candidate that wouldn't harm any group? No, I can't. That's the problem with voting for representatives or officials—you inevitably end up voting for a politician. The candidate pool is made up of people who see force as a reasonable means for solving problems, real or imagined; those who don't see it that way have more productive things to do than run for political office in a system they consider immoral. Occasionally you get an idealist who thinks they can change the system from within, but it's too well entrenched—the corruption ends up infecting them instead.

giantg2 4y ago

Yes, you don't need to be part of the 50%, but that doesn't get you away from that effect of the 50% either. There are causes in both major parties that someone is likely to find themselves on the receiving end of some law or regulation that they don't like. So you could still end up opposing that 50% if you're lumping them all in with the politician on that side. "If you vote for a candidate knowing that they will use the power you give them in ways which are harmful to others, you're contributing to the problem." Can you name any candidate that wouldn't harm any group? It seems they all have ideas about what laws would make things better, and those laws tend to involve control of people's actions or inactions.

nybble41 4y ago
> Can you name any candidate that wouldn't harm any group? No, I can't. That's the problem with voting for representatives or officials—you inevitably end up voting for a politician. The candidate pool is made up of people who see force as a reasonable means for solving problems, real or imagined; those who don't see it that way have more productive things to do than run for political office in a system they consider immoral. Occasionally you get an idealist who thinks they can change the system from within, but it's too well entrenched—the corruption ends up infecting them instead.