4 ms·
No. 100x no. That is how to waste your vote. Voting for the "lesser evil" is only a good idea when the "greater evil" is so great that they will destroy the
by Amadou 13y ago
No. 100x no. That is how to waste your vote.
Voting for the "lesser evil" is only a good idea when the "greater evil" is so great that they will destroy the country. That has never been the case.
Voting for the "lesser evil" is actually worse than not voting at all because it tells the parties that being evil still gets them votes.
The only way political parties in the US change is through threat of losing enough votes. If you want change that the duopoly does not offer then you must vote your conscience even if it means that this "greater evil" person will win. Because in the long run the party that lost will have to incorporate the policies of the 3rd parties that are "stealing" their votes the next time around.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoI suspect that most people vote similarly. >The only way political parties in the US change is through threat of losing enough votes. If you want change that the duopoly does not offer then you must vote your conscience even if it means that this "greater evil" person will win. Because in the long run the party that lost will have to incorporate the policies of the 3rd parties that are "stealing" their votes the next time around. A person gets a chance to vote in ~14-15 elections, realistically fewer than that. A person also has to coordinate their non-standard voting plan with others. I just don't think there are enough iterations for that to happen. Communication via the internet might change that, but I am skeptical.
- Amadou 13y agoCoordination between voters is unnecessary. The job of the 3rd parties is to communicate their issues - that plus vote tallies is enough to make it pretty clear what issues the duopoly need to incorporate into their platforms.