29 ms·

because the other side was a joke,and between 2 evils one should always chose the lesser.

by camus2 13y ago

moron4hire 13y ago
How about they don't choose either? I chose to not be involved in a sham of a process that purports to give "two" options.
- afterburner 13y ago
  Hopefully not too many people follow your example.
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    Neither Mitt Romney or Barack Obama were good choices for President, regardless of their comparison to each other. If more people refused to vote for a bad candidate, then the margin to win would be much smaller. Egads, if people voted for who they actually wanted, rather than vote against who they want the least, then maybe we'd get someone who actually, you know, represents the people! The only reason you can be upset about me not voting against my principles is that I'm not helping your favored candidate over your disfavored candidate.
    - afterburner 13y ago
      I disagree that both main candidates were not good. The winning presidential candidate does roughly represent the majority preference of the people. You make it sound like everyone is being disenfranchised. If you support proportional representation, or ranked voting, or some other change, I'd agree to that. If you went around telling everyone that would vote for my preferred candidate to vote for candidate X that has no chance of winning, I might be annoyed if you succeeded. Unless I liked candidate X even more and knew you could succeed with everyone (or a majority anyways); but that's very unlikely.
      - moron4hire 13y ago
        our disagreement on the suitability of the candidates is the entire point of voting. and I think it is important to note: of the people who could have voted, only 28% chose to vote and vote for Obama. and going around, telling people to not vote for your preferred candidate, that is the entire point of campaigning.
        afterburner 13y ago
        I'm not saying you shouldn't campaign. You just read way too much into my initial "Hopefully not too many people follow your example" statement. But then you made some contentious statements so I felt I had to reply. Like saying the two main candidates were not good, stated as fact. Something clearly many people disagree with you on.
        moron4hire 13y ago
        having to preface every sentence with "in my opinion" is a waste of text. I am speaking it, of course it is my opinion. It is only fact insofar as it can be recognized as so. I did not explicitly state "it's a fact". Don't be pedantic.
        afterburner 13y ago
        It's not that simple, since you followed with: "If more people refused to vote for a bad candidate, then the margin to win would be much smaller. Egads, if people voted for who they actually wanted, rather than vote against who they want the least, then maybe we'd get someone who actually, you know, represents the people!" So you're using "the main candidates are bad" as the basis for how the population should vote. It was more a bad assumption than an opinion.
- cynwoody 13y ago
  That's a tactical mistake. You are throwing away your vote. I'm a libertarian. But I almost never vote Losertarian, because I want to influence the outcome. So, I generally hold my nose and vote Republican, the Democrat Party being the party of Big Government, the enemy of Liberty!
  - DalekBaldwin 13y ago
    That's a miscalculation of opportunity costs. You are throwing away the time you could have spent doing better things than voting. How many times have you cast the deciding vote in an election?
    - afterburner 13y ago
      The opportunity cost of at most a few hours? Every two to four years?
      - DalekBaldwin 13y ago
        Sure. You could spend that time writing posts on Hacker News that influence more than one voter.
        afterburner 13y ago
        oof, long shot...
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    It's not wasting my vote if I don't want either the Democrat or the Republican. By your logic, the vote is equally wasted if I vote Republican and the Democrats win, because I "didn't influence the outcome". Voting isn't a lottery game, you're not trying to use your vote to predict the outcome. You use it to voice your opinion. My opinion is that the two candidates provided are neither adequate, therefore I will not endorse either. EDIT: And in parliamentary procedure, abstaining from voting is a valid option, and it is not a waste of a vote. You are specifically going on record as not approving of the choice being provided.
ams6110 13y ago
Assumes facts not in evidence.

because the other side was a joke,and between 2 evils one should always chose the lesser.

by camus2 13y ago

because the other side was a joke,and between 2 evils one should always chose the lesser.

How about they don't choose either? I chose to not be involved in a sham of a process that purports to give "two" options.

afterburner 13y ago
Hopefully not too many people follow your example.
- moron4hire 13y ago
  Neither Mitt Romney or Barack Obama were good choices for President, regardless of their comparison to each other. If more people refused to vote for a bad candidate, then the margin to win would be much smaller. Egads, if people voted for who they actually wanted, rather than vote against who they want the least, then maybe we'd get someone who actually, you know, represents the people! The only reason you can be upset about me not voting against my principles is that I'm not helping your favored candidate over your disfavored candidate.
  - afterburner 13y ago
    I disagree that both main candidates were not good. The winning presidential candidate does roughly represent the majority preference of the people. You make it sound like everyone is being disenfranchised. If you support proportional representation, or ranked voting, or some other change, I'd agree to that. If you went around telling everyone that would vote for my preferred candidate to vote for candidate X that has no chance of winning, I might be annoyed if you succeeded. Unless I liked candidate X even more and knew you could succeed with everyone (or a majority anyways); but that's very unlikely.
    - moron4hire 13y ago
      our disagreement on the suitability of the candidates is the entire point of voting. and I think it is important to note: of the people who could have voted, only 28% chose to vote and vote for Obama. and going around, telling people to not vote for your preferred candidate, that is the entire point of campaigning.
      - afterburner 13y ago
        I'm not saying you shouldn't campaign. You just read way too much into my initial "Hopefully not too many people follow your example" statement. But then you made some contentious statements so I felt I had to reply. Like saying the two main candidates were not good, stated as fact. Something clearly many people disagree with you on.
        moron4hire 13y ago
        having to preface every sentence with "in my opinion" is a waste of text. I am speaking it, of course it is my opinion. It is only fact insofar as it can be recognized as so. I did not explicitly state "it's a fact". Don't be pedantic.
        afterburner 13y ago
        It's not that simple, since you followed with: "If more people refused to vote for a bad candidate, then the margin to win would be much smaller. Egads, if people voted for who they actually wanted, rather than vote against who they want the least, then maybe we'd get someone who actually, you know, represents the people!" So you're using "the main candidates are bad" as the basis for how the population should vote. It was more a bad assumption than an opinion.
cynwoody 13y ago
That's a tactical mistake. You are throwing away your vote. I'm a libertarian. But I almost never vote Losertarian, because I want to influence the outcome. So, I generally hold my nose and vote Republican, the Democrat Party being the party of Big Government, the enemy of Liberty!
- DalekBaldwin 13y ago
  That's a miscalculation of opportunity costs. You are throwing away the time you could have spent doing better things than voting. How many times have you cast the deciding vote in an election?
  - afterburner 13y ago
    The opportunity cost of at most a few hours? Every two to four years?
    - DalekBaldwin 13y ago
      Sure. You could spend that time writing posts on Hacker News that influence more than one voter.
      - afterburner 13y ago
        oof, long shot...
- moron4hire 13y ago
  It's not wasting my vote if I don't want either the Democrat or the Republican. By your logic, the vote is equally wasted if I vote Republican and the Democrats win, because I "didn't influence the outcome". Voting isn't a lottery game, you're not trying to use your vote to predict the outcome. You use it to voice your opinion. My opinion is that the two candidates provided are neither adequate, therefore I will not endorse either. EDIT: And in parliamentary procedure, abstaining from voting is a valid option, and it is not a waste of a vote. You are specifically going on record as not approving of the choice being provided.

ams6110 13y ago

Assumes facts not in evidence.