4 ms·
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 y
by 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 agoThe 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 agoThe 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.
- _heimdall 2y agoI totally agree with you here. I would support almost any Congressional candidate that I believe to honestly want to push through a change in this direction to our electoral system. For now I just don't see Congress actually considering such a fundamental change to our electoral system, its rare enough that they pass a budget on time.