6 ms·

We often have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

denton-scratch 4y ago
Not really; I refuse to vote for evil politicians (it keeps my karma nice and shiny). Unless voting is mandatory, you can simply not vote for anyone. My practice is to vote for someone that won't win, like the Greens, but for whom my vote might save them their deposit.
- 0dayz 4y ago
  Sure, but then you can't either act surprised when the more evil politicians are elected and blame people for either not voting or voting for better politicians. You get what you vote or don't vote for
  - Retric 4y ago
    That’s only looking at a single election. Being willing to vote for scum means your party is happy to send scum to the next general election, at which point you get to vote for even more scum. Have some standards in the general election and people start looking at scum thinking their not electable.
    - 0dayz 4y ago
      If you want better politicians, there are two things you can do: Vote in primaries, there are different rules about this but if it means you have to join and participate in party activity to vote for a candidate then so be it. hold them accountable together as ironic as it is: as a lobbying group, or even more grandiose work together with as many citizens of the state (even across the party line, no craziness though), to hold the governor/politician accountable.
      - Pulcinella 4y ago
        Yep don’t forget the second option. Direct action is always possible. I subscribe to a “block of marble” theory of politics: you can always METAPHORICALLY beat those in power into shape.
      - nulbyte 4y ago
        Some states have open primaries, eliminating the need to join a party. I wish my state was one of them, because I hate the political parties.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        > but if it means you have to join and participate in party activity Yeah. But my shiny karma doesn't want me to join a party whose policies I disagree with, just so I can influence their choice of candidates. That seems hypocritical, and I regard hypocrisy as the cardinal political "sin". I've never agreed with the policies of any parties, so I have never joined a political party. The closest I got was that I joined CND, about 40 years ago. I quit about 39 years ago.
  - fexecve 4y ago
    If you were already going to get what you didn't vote for, what's the difference?
- 62346136 4y ago
  Refusing to vote doesn't change the outcome if the only choices are bad ones. If anything it means you effectively voted for whoever had the majority in the end and are still guilty of supporting the greater evil if they turn out to be such.
  - trinsic2 4y ago
    >If anything it means you effectively voted for whoever had the majority in the end and are still guilty of supporting the greater evil if they turn out to be such. Thats red herring. Our electoral system is completely corrupt. The only way your vote would actuallycount is if all of the politicians we're replaced at once. Then maybe there would be an even playing field where it would matter. Your statement of "you effectively voted for whoever had the majority" is like living in a state controlled by a two party system of gangsters and telling us that we just voted for the greater evil. Our two party system is corrupt, both parties are corrupt, don't lie to yourself.
    - esarbe 4y ago
      I think you make it too easy for yourself to drop responsibility. "Both parties are corrupt, everything is corrupt, the system is corrupt" is just a cope out. There are efforts to introduce alternative voting systems that make 3rd party systems viable. There are efforts to get ~~corruption~~ lobbying out of the system, ... If you really think that the system is "totally corrupt"; do something to fix it.
      - trinsic2 4y ago
        Im not AT ALL responsible for a system that is not controlled by the people. That has been as clear as day for the past 50 years. If you are supporting it, you are the problem. You are supporting corruption by playing its game. Yes my "do something" is focusing on supporting grassroots people and efforts that we have direct control over. I have no interest in supporting systems that are not backed up by common individuals.
        4y ago
- themitigating 4y ago
  Not voting is voting you taking away a vote from one side.
  - Pulcinella 4y ago
    Doesn’t work like that. I’ve had my red team grandparents saying not voting was the same as voting for blue team, and my blue team grandparents saying not voting was the same as voting for red team. Both things can’t be true. And even if they were, then not voting would be the same as voting for every team, in which case the difference in votes between each candidate doesn’t change. Not voting is just not voting.
nyrulez 4y ago
Election denier vs right to repair denier. If you consider the former less evil, good luck to you.
- EricE 4y ago
  Election denier is such a stupid phrase - right now Democrats like to act like they have never disputed an election, which is a total crock. Hell Stacy Abrams had to be defeated twice before she finally conceded. And then you have people like some of those in this thread that not only buy into it, but feel morally superior at being duplicitous. Sigh.
  - nyrulez 4y ago
    If you really can't see the difference between Trump's fraudulent "election was stolen" claims that led to a whole attack on capitol and that he still can't get over it to this day vs Stacy Abrams recount or whatever, there is nothing that can be be done to persuade your kind. It's like being too far gone to see any logic.

Not really; I refuse to vote for evil politicians (it keeps my karma nice and shiny). Unless voting is mandatory, you can simply not vote for anyone. My practice is to vote for someone that won't win, like the Greens, but for whom my vote might save them their deposit.

0dayz 4y ago
Sure, but then you can't either act surprised when the more evil politicians are elected and blame people for either not voting or voting for better politicians. You get what you vote or don't vote for
- Retric 4y ago
  That’s only looking at a single election. Being willing to vote for scum means your party is happy to send scum to the next general election, at which point you get to vote for even more scum. Have some standards in the general election and people start looking at scum thinking their not electable.
  - 0dayz 4y ago
    If you want better politicians, there are two things you can do: Vote in primaries, there are different rules about this but if it means you have to join and participate in party activity to vote for a candidate then so be it. hold them accountable together as ironic as it is: as a lobbying group, or even more grandiose work together with as many citizens of the state (even across the party line, no craziness though), to hold the governor/politician accountable.
    - Pulcinella 4y ago
      Yep don’t forget the second option. Direct action is always possible. I subscribe to a “block of marble” theory of politics: you can always METAPHORICALLY beat those in power into shape.
    - nulbyte 4y ago
      Some states have open primaries, eliminating the need to join a party. I wish my state was one of them, because I hate the political parties.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      > but if it means you have to join and participate in party activity Yeah. But my shiny karma doesn't want me to join a party whose policies I disagree with, just so I can influence their choice of candidates. That seems hypocritical, and I regard hypocrisy as the cardinal political "sin". I've never agreed with the policies of any parties, so I have never joined a political party. The closest I got was that I joined CND, about 40 years ago. I quit about 39 years ago.
- fexecve 4y ago
  If you were already going to get what you didn't vote for, what's the difference?
62346136 4y ago
Refusing to vote doesn't change the outcome if the only choices are bad ones. If anything it means you effectively voted for whoever had the majority in the end and are still guilty of supporting the greater evil if they turn out to be such.
- trinsic2 4y ago
  >If anything it means you effectively voted for whoever had the majority in the end and are still guilty of supporting the greater evil if they turn out to be such. Thats red herring. Our electoral system is completely corrupt. The only way your vote would actuallycount is if all of the politicians we're replaced at once. Then maybe there would be an even playing field where it would matter. Your statement of "you effectively voted for whoever had the majority" is like living in a state controlled by a two party system of gangsters and telling us that we just voted for the greater evil. Our two party system is corrupt, both parties are corrupt, don't lie to yourself.
  - esarbe 4y ago
    I think you make it too easy for yourself to drop responsibility. "Both parties are corrupt, everything is corrupt, the system is corrupt" is just a cope out. There are efforts to introduce alternative voting systems that make 3rd party systems viable. There are efforts to get ~~corruption~~ lobbying out of the system, ... If you really think that the system is "totally corrupt"; do something to fix it.
    - trinsic2 4y ago
      Im not AT ALL responsible for a system that is not controlled by the people. That has been as clear as day for the past 50 years. If you are supporting it, you are the problem. You are supporting corruption by playing its game. Yes my "do something" is focusing on supporting grassroots people and efforts that we have direct control over. I have no interest in supporting systems that are not backed up by common individuals.
      - 4y ago
themitigating 4y ago
Not voting is voting you taking away a vote from one side.
- Pulcinella 4y ago
  Doesn’t work like that. I’ve had my red team grandparents saying not voting was the same as voting for blue team, and my blue team grandparents saying not voting was the same as voting for red team. Both things can’t be true. And even if they were, then not voting would be the same as voting for every team, in which case the difference in votes between each candidate doesn’t change. Not voting is just not voting.

nyrulez 4y ago

Election denier vs right to repair denier. If you consider the former less evil, good luck to you.

EricE 4y ago
Election denier is such a stupid phrase - right now Democrats like to act like they have never disputed an election, which is a total crock. Hell Stacy Abrams had to be defeated twice before she finally conceded. And then you have people like some of those in this thread that not only buy into it, but feel morally superior at being duplicitous. Sigh.
- nyrulez 4y ago
  If you really can't see the difference between Trump's fraudulent "election was stolen" claims that led to a whole attack on capitol and that he still can't get over it to this day vs Stacy Abrams recount or whatever, there is nothing that can be be done to persuade your kind. It's like being too far gone to see any logic.