3 ms·

I vote for who I like the best, and that does not limit it to the two parties that have a chance of producing a winner. Abstaining from voting strengthens ever

by Firehed 14y ago

I vote for who I like the best, and that does not limit it to the two parties that have a chance of producing a winner. Abstaining from voting strengthens everyone else's vote that much more, indicating that I don't care who wins. I opt to select a candidate that I know will not win but aligns with my views because a) the idea of selecting the lesser of two evils disgusts me, and I will have no part in it, and b) it actively indicates that I do not want either of the major players to win. Yes, I'm of course perfectly aware that this has precisely no impact in the final tallies (I live in California, the state's delegates have been decided long before the election; this has been true everywhere I've lived never having lived in a swing state) - not at America's scale. But it helps me sleep at night knowing that I took a (uselessly tiny) stand, and far more importantly, can be explained to people in such a way that allows them to realize that they can do the same. If that message spreads far enough, it could actually turn into real impact.

robomartin 14y ago
> I vote for who I like the best, and that does not limit it to the two parties that have a chance of producing a winner. I with you. Well, I used to be with you. Until I realized that part of our responsibility is to help steer the ship in the correct general direction. Voting for someone who cannot hope to win (or not voting) means that there's some probability that the better of the two candidates who could win might loose. In some cases the lesser evil could mean the difference between hitting the iceberg or scraping it. And, as disgusting as the idea might be, I'd rather scrape it. I, too, live in California. Here's a thought: What do you think the message would be --to the nation-- if California produced a majority Republican vote in November? To say that this would send shock-waves through the political system would be the understatement of the century. It would signal huge discontent with the direction of the boat and it would put all politicians (from any party) on notice: Things are no-longer the same. This is what I am talking about. The message you want to send is but a rounding error. The message that could be sent by supporting the "other" party would be equivalent to the earth's poles flipping overnight. That's a message.
- joelrunyon 14y ago
  What about sending a message by giving a third party a significant vote? I'd argue that would "put all politicians" on notice, much faster than simply playing tug of war between the same two parties over and over and over again.
- hermannj314 14y ago
  "I'm writing in Ron Paul this November" "If you didn't vote for Ron Paul, who would you vote for?" "Romney" "In your opinion: the worst candidate?" "Obama" "But you see, the opportunity cost of your vote for Paul is a vote for Romney, so by voting for Ron Paul, you are denying a vote to Romney, which in a two-candidate election, is a vote for Obama. This means the worst candiate, in your eyes, is the candidate you are voting for simply because you are voting for the candidate that you think is best."
- Firehed 14y ago
  I agree with the steering the ship logic - I'm just using a different approach to sending the message. The vote here is actually irrelevant (other than I refuse to not practice what I preach). The important part is spreading the idea of not limiting votes to the two main parties if you feel a third party candidate better aligns with your views. I want people to stop trying to outwit each other when voting and just vote for who they actually want in office. It's also partially due to the fact that I feel both mainstream candidates are equally poor choices, just for different reasons. On the issues I care about, they tend to have the same policies (maintain the status quo, just wrap different politician-speak around it). The reality is that I have effectively no chance of eliciting real, substancial change in the political system without becoming a part of it (either by running for office or buying off someone already in office - err, sorry, donating to their reelection campaign), and I'm having difficulty thinking of something I'd like to do less. So long as a principled message will have no substancial effect regardless of the route I take, I'd at least like that pointless principled message to be in line with my own views.

by Firehed 14y ago

robomartin 14y ago

> I vote for who I like the best, and that does not limit it to the two parties that have a chance of producing a winner. I with you. Well, I used to be with you. Until I realized that part of our responsibility is to help steer the ship in the correct general direction. Voting for someone who cannot hope to win (or not voting) means that there's some probability that the better of the two candidates who could win might loose. In some cases the lesser evil could mean the difference between hitting the iceberg or scraping it. And, as disgusting as the idea might be, I'd rather scrape it. I, too, live in California. Here's a thought: What do you think the message would be --to the nation-- if California produced a majority Republican vote in November? To say that this would send shock-waves through the political system would be the understatement of the century. It would signal huge discontent with the direction of the boat and it would put all politicians (from any party) on notice: Things are no-longer the same. This is what I am talking about. The message you want to send is but a rounding error. The message that could be sent by supporting the "other" party would be equivalent to the earth's poles flipping overnight. That's a message.

joelrunyon 14y ago
What about sending a message by giving a third party a significant vote? I'd argue that would "put all politicians" on notice, much faster than simply playing tug of war between the same two parties over and over and over again.
hermannj314 14y ago
"I'm writing in Ron Paul this November" "If you didn't vote for Ron Paul, who would you vote for?" "Romney" "In your opinion: the worst candidate?" "Obama" "But you see, the opportunity cost of your vote for Paul is a vote for Romney, so by voting for Ron Paul, you are denying a vote to Romney, which in a two-candidate election, is a vote for Obama. This means the worst candiate, in your eyes, is the candidate you are voting for simply because you are voting for the candidate that you think is best."
Firehed 14y ago
I agree with the steering the ship logic - I'm just using a different approach to sending the message. The vote here is actually irrelevant (other than I refuse to not practice what I preach). The important part is spreading the idea of not limiting votes to the two main parties if you feel a third party candidate better aligns with your views. I want people to stop trying to outwit each other when voting and just vote for who they actually want in office. It's also partially due to the fact that I feel both mainstream candidates are equally poor choices, just for different reasons. On the issues I care about, they tend to have the same policies (maintain the status quo, just wrap different politician-speak around it). The reality is that I have effectively no chance of eliciting real, substancial change in the political system without becoming a part of it (either by running for office or buying off someone already in office - err, sorry, donating to their reelection campaign), and I'm having difficulty thinking of something I'd like to do less. So long as a principled message will have no substancial effect regardless of the route I take, I'd at least like that pointless principled message to be in line with my own views.