4 ms·

> I voted for Romney You are part of the problem. When someone is a fucking idiot, you don't vote for the slightly less idiotic idiot, you vote third-party. Yo

by kunai 13y ago

> I voted for Romney You are part of the problem. When someone is a fucking idiot, you don't vote for the slightly less idiotic idiot, you vote third-party. You are not independent, and it's an embarrassment to say you are if you only vote for the lesser of two evils, and not one that cares about our country, like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> it's an embarrassment to say you are if you only vote for the lesser of two evils, and not one that cares about our country, like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. Its quite possible to think that, of Obama and Romney, Romney is the lesser of two evils, and to think that for any X in (Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein), Romney would still be the lesser of two evils when considering Romney vs. X. Its also quite possible to believe that Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein would be better than Romney who is in turn better than Obama but that, based on the information available at the time you go into the voting booth, that the plausible effects of voting for any of the third party candidates instead of Romney are, in declining order or probability: 1. No effect on the election outcome, 2. Increasing the probability of an Obama win 3. There is no #3 Based on this, it would be counterproductive to vote third party, and the responsible thing would be to vote for Romney. (Note that none of this should be taken as indicating anything of my actual preferences among any of those candidates.)
- kunai 13y ago
  > Based on this, it would be counterproductive to vote third party, and the responsible thing would be to vote for Romney. This only stands if you want it to be counterproductive. A third-party candidate vote is never counterproductive. Even if it did increase the probability of an Obama win, or even if it did have no effect on the election outcome, why would it be a wasted vote? What you're effectively doing is raising publicity for the cause. Just because you'll have to suffer 4 more years of struggle doesn't mean it's all for nought.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Even if it did increase the probability of an Obama win, or even if it did have no effect on the election outcome, why would it be a wasted vote? If you think Obama is substantially worse than Romney and it increased the probability of an Obama win, its not a wasted vote, its a counterproductive vote. (That is, its a worse that decreases the expected realized utility.) > What you're effectively doing is raising publicity for the cause. There's better ways to do that that precede the voting booth, and which, if successful, eliminate the problem of counterproductive voting. At the voting booth, when those prior efforts haven't succeeded, you have to weigh the benefits of maybe microscopically advancing the PR for the cause by adding one to the count of protest votes against the microscopic possibility (times the expected magnitude of harm) of tossing the election to the least-favored of the major party candidate, and the policy consequences of that (which can, depending on the candidates choices, include a greater decrease in the long-term prospects of the kind of changes you want than the increase that would be expected from the PR value of a third-party vote, particularly if you think the major-party choices are between "basically maintaining the status quo" and "maintaining the worst features of the status quo while substantial reducing economic and political freedoms".) Political engagement isn't limited to voting.
- robomartin 13y ago
  > Based on this, it would be counterproductive to vote third party, and the responsible thing would be to vote for Romney. Exactly right. When faced with wasting your vote the intelligent thing to do is to try to mitigate damage and cast a vote for the person who is likely to do the most good where it matters. Obama, as it turns out, isn't even qualified to run a cookie-baking operation. We really needed someone with a deep understanding of business and economics at the helm. The only electable choice was Romney. Any other vote would have been a wasted vote.

by kunai 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> it's an embarrassment to say you are if you only vote for the lesser of two evils, and not one that cares about our country, like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. Its quite possible to think that, of Obama and Romney, Romney is the lesser of two evils, and to think that for any X in (Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein), Romney would still be the lesser of two evils when considering Romney vs. X. Its also quite possible to believe that Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein would be better than Romney who is in turn better than Obama but that, based on the information available at the time you go into the voting booth, that the plausible effects of voting for any of the third party candidates instead of Romney are, in declining order or probability: 1. No effect on the election outcome, 2. Increasing the probability of an Obama win 3. There is no #3 Based on this, it would be counterproductive to vote third party, and the responsible thing would be to vote for Romney. (Note that none of this should be taken as indicating anything of my actual preferences among any of those candidates.)

kunai 13y ago
> Based on this, it would be counterproductive to vote third party, and the responsible thing would be to vote for Romney. This only stands if you want it to be counterproductive. A third-party candidate vote is never counterproductive. Even if it did increase the probability of an Obama win, or even if it did have no effect on the election outcome, why would it be a wasted vote? What you're effectively doing is raising publicity for the cause. Just because you'll have to suffer 4 more years of struggle doesn't mean it's all for nought.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Even if it did increase the probability of an Obama win, or even if it did have no effect on the election outcome, why would it be a wasted vote? If you think Obama is substantially worse than Romney and it increased the probability of an Obama win, its not a wasted vote, its a counterproductive vote. (That is, its a worse that decreases the expected realized utility.) > What you're effectively doing is raising publicity for the cause. There's better ways to do that that precede the voting booth, and which, if successful, eliminate the problem of counterproductive voting. At the voting booth, when those prior efforts haven't succeeded, you have to weigh the benefits of maybe microscopically advancing the PR for the cause by adding one to the count of protest votes against the microscopic possibility (times the expected magnitude of harm) of tossing the election to the least-favored of the major party candidate, and the policy consequences of that (which can, depending on the candidates choices, include a greater decrease in the long-term prospects of the kind of changes you want than the increase that would be expected from the PR value of a third-party vote, particularly if you think the major-party choices are between "basically maintaining the status quo" and "maintaining the worst features of the status quo while substantial reducing economic and political freedoms".) Political engagement isn't limited to voting.
robomartin 13y ago
> Based on this, it would be counterproductive to vote third party, and the responsible thing would be to vote for Romney. Exactly right. When faced with wasting your vote the intelligent thing to do is to try to mitigate damage and cast a vote for the person who is likely to do the most good where it matters. Obama, as it turns out, isn't even qualified to run a cookie-baking operation. We really needed someone with a deep understanding of business and economics at the helm. The only electable choice was Romney. Any other vote would have been a wasted vote.