5 ms·

> I view voting as a responsibility to pick a candidate I want to lead rather than a vote to block someone I don't want to lead. You can view it however you wa

> I view voting as a responsibility to pick a candidate I want to lead rather than a vote to block someone I don't want to lead. You can view it however you want, it doesn’t make it true. Perhaps it would help to consider that one of the two candidates will be leading after the election, and make your decision based off of which of the two outcomes you would prefer.

SllX 2y ago
Voting is using a share of power borne of your citizenship to express a political preference. I too used to think of voting as more of an obligation, but it really isn’t. It is a choice. If you’re staring down two candidates you don’t want to vote for and nobody in the 3rd parties is worth registering even a protest vote through, it is entirely reasonable to choose not to vote at all. All the rhetoric that exists to try and drive/guilt people into the ballot box exists for the purpose of trying to get more people to turn out for their preferred candidate.
- roughly 2y ago
  I’m not stating this as a treatise on political science or theory or the rights and obligations of the citizenry or any other high-minded ideal: come November 6th, one of either Donald Trump or whoever the democrats pick to run will be the president elect, and for the next 4 years, they will be president. What you decide to do with that fact is up to you, and your justifications are your own, but come November 6th, Donald Trump will be the president elect or Kamala or whoever the democrats pick. Those are the two potential outcomes. Talk yourself into whatever you want, just don’t convince yourself there’s a third choice.
  - swader999 2y ago
    I'd like to see RFK get enough support to get into debates officially. Supporting him might be considered by most to be a wasted vote, but is it if it changes the discourse? I'm Canadian btw, no horse in this race.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I really want to like RFK but find myself only agreeing with him on a few topics. That said, I also really want to see more people viewing a third party as a legitimate option that isn't a wasted vote. I'd argue that most votes are wasred given that most states are solidly aligned with one party or another. I happen to live in a strongly Republican state, making every ballot I've cast for Democrats effectively meaningless.
  - SllX 2y ago
    > Talk yourself into whatever you want, just don’t convince yourself there’s a third choice. Literally nobody here is doing that.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    From the context of a voter, I would argue that your scensrio ignores the actual choice to be made. I can choose to support Trump, Harris (if that's who they pick), or neither. The third option is absolutely a choice if you view your vote as a vote of support rather than a vote for the lesser of two evils.
    - SllX 2y ago
      I think by third choice he meant an outcome other than Trump or the Democratic nominee (presumed Harris, I guess?) winning this election. One of them will definitely win and the other will definitely lose; I’m with you that they don’t have to do it with our votes specifically.
    - roughly 2y ago
      As a voter, you have an infinite choice of actions. There's a "write in" line - you can cast your vote for literally anyone who's ever lived, any fictional character, anyone or anything you want. You can cast no vote, you can write a treatise on the ballot about voter choice, you can tear the ballot in half dramatically in front of all nearby. You can choose to do whatever you want. Whatever action you choose to take and however you view it, there will be one of two outcomes the day after.
- kiitos 2y ago
  Voting is absolutely an obligation for any democratic society. Abstaining provides no kind of signal or message to the body politic.
  - SllX 2y ago
    Elections occurring and people voting in them is necessary for the continuance of a democratic society. The actions of individuals who are qualified to vote within said democratic society choosing not to vote does not nullify this. > Abstaining provides no kind of signal or message to the body politic. This is true and irrelevant. Not wanting to spend the (rounding up) 10 seconds to glance at and fill out the Presidential portion of a ballot nor waste the ink from your pen to do so before dropping it in the post simply because you do not like any of the viable candidates enough to do so (or for any other reason) is a personal affair.
    - kiitos 2y ago
      > Not wanting to spend the (rounding up) 10 seconds to glance at and fill out the Presidential portion of a ballot nor waste the ink from your pen to do so before dropping it in the post simply because you do not like any of the viable candidates enough to do so (or for any other reason) is a personal affair. In the same way that not helping at the scene of an automobile accident is a personal affair, I suppose, yes.
      - SllX 2y ago
        I mean if you fail a logic check and treat equally an automobile accident with a cavalcade of knuckleheads running to acquire power, you are absolutely correct. Just not in this reality.
        kiitos 2y ago
        This is an infantile perspective on society and government. Be better.
        2y ago
_heimdall 2y ago
Taken to the extreme, if the two candidates were Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler would you still feel that every voter must accept that litation and vote in support of one of them? By no means am I saying that is our situation today, but your view of how voters must decide leaves absolutely no room for voters to decide that neither option is acceptable.
- lupire 2y ago
  If neither option is acceptable, you should be doing a lot more than boycotting the vote. Anyway, extreme hypotheticals are distractions.
- roughly 2y ago
  I'm not arguing that voters must do anything. I'm saying that there are two possible outcomes on November 6th, and that to pretend otherwise - to pretend that your vote, or lack of vote, or protest vote, or whatever else leads to anything but one of those two possible outcomes is a fantasy. All of the work to change the options happens before the vote, not during it. And no, your ludicrous example doesn't change that.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    The example isn't ludicrous, it's playing out the worst case and asking whether you still believe that voters must choose to support what they see as the least bad option. You literally said that voters should pick which of the two options seem best. So again, if given the choice of Hitler and Himmler should voters be held to that standard? If not, is it reasonable for voters to disagree with the vote and choose not to be party to it?
    - defrost 2y ago
      The correct answer is that responsible voters should work to change a broken voting system. Such an dilemma doesn't occur in a Washminster system with preferential voting, that it does in the antiquated US election system is damning.

SllX 2y ago

Voting is using a share of power borne of your citizenship to express a political preference. I too used to think of voting as more of an obligation, but it really isn’t. It is a choice. If you’re staring down two candidates you don’t want to vote for and nobody in the 3rd parties is worth registering even a protest vote through, it is entirely reasonable to choose not to vote at all. All the rhetoric that exists to try and drive/guilt people into the ballot box exists for the purpose of trying to get more people to turn out for their preferred candidate.

roughly 2y ago
I’m not stating this as a treatise on political science or theory or the rights and obligations of the citizenry or any other high-minded ideal: come November 6th, one of either Donald Trump or whoever the democrats pick to run will be the president elect, and for the next 4 years, they will be president. What you decide to do with that fact is up to you, and your justifications are your own, but come November 6th, Donald Trump will be the president elect or Kamala or whoever the democrats pick. Those are the two potential outcomes. Talk yourself into whatever you want, just don’t convince yourself there’s a third choice.
- swader999 2y ago
  I'd like to see RFK get enough support to get into debates officially. Supporting him might be considered by most to be a wasted vote, but is it if it changes the discourse? I'm Canadian btw, no horse in this race.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    I really want to like RFK but find myself only agreeing with him on a few topics. That said, I also really want to see more people viewing a third party as a legitimate option that isn't a wasted vote. I'd argue that most votes are wasred given that most states are solidly aligned with one party or another. I happen to live in a strongly Republican state, making every ballot I've cast for Democrats effectively meaningless.
- SllX 2y ago
  > Talk yourself into whatever you want, just don’t convince yourself there’s a third choice. Literally nobody here is doing that.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  From the context of a voter, I would argue that your scensrio ignores the actual choice to be made. I can choose to support Trump, Harris (if that's who they pick), or neither. The third option is absolutely a choice if you view your vote as a vote of support rather than a vote for the lesser of two evils.
  - SllX 2y ago
    I think by third choice he meant an outcome other than Trump or the Democratic nominee (presumed Harris, I guess?) winning this election. One of them will definitely win and the other will definitely lose; I’m with you that they don’t have to do it with our votes specifically.
  - roughly 2y ago
    As a voter, you have an infinite choice of actions. There's a "write in" line - you can cast your vote for literally anyone who's ever lived, any fictional character, anyone or anything you want. You can cast no vote, you can write a treatise on the ballot about voter choice, you can tear the ballot in half dramatically in front of all nearby. You can choose to do whatever you want. Whatever action you choose to take and however you view it, there will be one of two outcomes the day after.
kiitos 2y ago
Voting is absolutely an obligation for any democratic society. Abstaining provides no kind of signal or message to the body politic.
- SllX 2y ago
  Elections occurring and people voting in them is necessary for the continuance of a democratic society. The actions of individuals who are qualified to vote within said democratic society choosing not to vote does not nullify this. > Abstaining provides no kind of signal or message to the body politic. This is true and irrelevant. Not wanting to spend the (rounding up) 10 seconds to glance at and fill out the Presidential portion of a ballot nor waste the ink from your pen to do so before dropping it in the post simply because you do not like any of the viable candidates enough to do so (or for any other reason) is a personal affair.
  - kiitos 2y ago
    > Not wanting to spend the (rounding up) 10 seconds to glance at and fill out the Presidential portion of a ballot nor waste the ink from your pen to do so before dropping it in the post simply because you do not like any of the viable candidates enough to do so (or for any other reason) is a personal affair. In the same way that not helping at the scene of an automobile accident is a personal affair, I suppose, yes.
    - SllX 2y ago
      I mean if you fail a logic check and treat equally an automobile accident with a cavalcade of knuckleheads running to acquire power, you are absolutely correct. Just not in this reality.
      - kiitos 2y ago
        This is an infantile perspective on society and government. Be better.
        2y ago

_heimdall 2y ago

Taken to the extreme, if the two candidates were Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler would you still feel that every voter must accept that litation and vote in support of one of them? By no means am I saying that is our situation today, but your view of how voters must decide leaves absolutely no room for voters to decide that neither option is acceptable.

lupire 2y ago
If neither option is acceptable, you should be doing a lot more than boycotting the vote. Anyway, extreme hypotheticals are distractions.
roughly 2y ago
I'm not arguing that voters must do anything. I'm saying that there are two possible outcomes on November 6th, and that to pretend otherwise - to pretend that your vote, or lack of vote, or protest vote, or whatever else leads to anything but one of those two possible outcomes is a fantasy. All of the work to change the options happens before the vote, not during it. And no, your ludicrous example doesn't change that.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  The example isn't ludicrous, it's playing out the worst case and asking whether you still believe that voters must choose to support what they see as the least bad option. You literally said that voters should pick which of the two options seem best. So again, if given the choice of Hitler and Himmler should voters be held to that standard? If not, is it reasonable for voters to disagree with the vote and choose not to be party to it?
  - defrost 2y ago
    The correct answer is that responsible voters should work to change a broken voting system. Such an dilemma doesn't occur in a Washminster system with preferential voting, that it does in the antiquated US election system is damning.