4 ms·

"advocate and vote for" is something that is determined by the choices on the ballot. If one is consistently awful and the other meets the minimum threshold to

"advocate and vote for" is something that is determined by the choices on the ballot. If one is consistently awful and the other meets the minimum threshold to be acceptable, of course you're going to advocate and vote for the better alternative. In an alternative world where you had multiple parties or where the parties switched on the awfulness of the candidates, an independent would vote differently.

jader201 2y ago
> If one is consistently awful Just a thought exercise, but it seems like this is, by definition, not independent. Someone that is truly independent would not feel either option is “consistently awful”, but find that some aspects of either occasionally aligns with your values, or neither do. It seems like if you sometimes align with one, and never align with the other, that’s still not truly independent.
- bangaroo 2y ago
  seems like an arbitrary thought exercise designed to justify this position? independent should fundamentally mean that you disregard each party's description of reality, arrive at your own understanding of the world and then make decisions based on each candidate's promises and previous actions. you decide based on that value system, not simply based on "who your party picked." if i decide i like kittens and value kittens, and i analyze both options presented to me and one consistently promises to euthanize all kittens, i don't think i'm a "party line voter" because i say "well, gosh, i really just can't stomach voting for that." it just ultimately is important enough to me that it not happen that i cannot accept it in exchange for their other more nuanced policies.
drewcoo 2y ago
> If one is consistently awful and the other meets the minimum threshold to be acceptable Then one is acceptable to you. Many of us don't feel that way. At all.
jfengel 2y ago
We have a two-stage voting system in the US. The first stage is often a multi-way election. The second stage is usually narrowed to two major candidates, which makes the outcome somewhat clearer because one gets a majority, or at least a plurality. But in that first stage you really do have the chance to vote for anybody you like. The incumbents certainly have a thumb on the scale in the primary. That's to be expected: they are already doing the job, and you know that people liked them once. But they can be replaced. It's just a matter of getting enough people to get more votes for your preferred candidate. Getting them to vote for "somebody else" isn't sufficient.

jader201 2y ago

> If one is consistently awful Just a thought exercise, but it seems like this is, by definition, not independent. Someone that is truly independent would not feel either option is “consistently awful”, but find that some aspects of either occasionally aligns with your values, or neither do. It seems like if you sometimes align with one, and never align with the other, that’s still not truly independent.

bangaroo 2y ago
seems like an arbitrary thought exercise designed to justify this position? independent should fundamentally mean that you disregard each party's description of reality, arrive at your own understanding of the world and then make decisions based on each candidate's promises and previous actions. you decide based on that value system, not simply based on "who your party picked." if i decide i like kittens and value kittens, and i analyze both options presented to me and one consistently promises to euthanize all kittens, i don't think i'm a "party line voter" because i say "well, gosh, i really just can't stomach voting for that." it just ultimately is important enough to me that it not happen that i cannot accept it in exchange for their other more nuanced policies.

drewcoo 2y ago

> If one is consistently awful and the other meets the minimum threshold to be acceptable Then one is acceptable to you. Many of us don't feel that way. At all.

jfengel 2y ago

We have a two-stage voting system in the US. The first stage is often a multi-way election. The second stage is usually narrowed to two major candidates, which makes the outcome somewhat clearer because one gets a majority, or at least a plurality. But in that first stage you really do have the chance to vote for anybody you like. The incumbents certainly have a thumb on the scale in the primary. That's to be expected: they are already doing the job, and you know that people liked them once. But they can be replaced. It's just a matter of getting enough people to get more votes for your preferred candidate. Getting them to vote for "somebody else" isn't sufficient.