6 ms·

When you vote for the lesser evil in a 2-party oligopoly, you are blameless for anything that party does that you disagree with. You made the best possible choi

When you vote for the lesser evil in a 2-party oligopoly, you are blameless for anything that party does that you disagree with. You made the best possible choice.

tolmasky 12y ago
Interesting thought experiment. What if that party you voted for, which was the lesser of two evils, then commits an act that makes them worse than the other party? Do the people that were previously "on the hook" now switch to being blameless, since, they are now technically the voters of the lesser of two evils, and you now suddenly inherit all the responsibility?
- fargolime 12y ago
  No. You made the best possible choice when you made it. That's what makes you blameless. If when you made the choice there was strong reason to believe such shift would happen, then your culpability would be less clear.
  - tolmasky 12y ago
    Ah ok, so next election though you should definitely vote for the party that was previously unthinkable to vote for, but is now the lesser of two evils and thus the "blameless" choice. So under your system of responsibility, as long as the parties keep one-upping each other in evilness, they can infinitely get worse and no one is ever to blame. Party A is lesser of two evils before the election but then does worse, then party B is lesser but after elected does worse, and so on and so on. Additionally, there is no way to escape this dasterdly plan because as you stated before voting for a third party is off the table because it is the absolute worst option. Yeah, I guess I see how we got to the state we're in with ideas like these.
    - fargolime 12y ago
      > So under your system of responsibility, as long as the parties keep one-upping each other in evilness, they can infinitely get worse Yes, unfortunately. We are effectively slaves, so absent a revolution (or alternative that leads to viable third parties) we don't have a choice about this. > and no one is ever to blame. No. Those who voted for the lesser evil are blameless for the actions they didn't support, until the next election when a new choice is made based on the info at that time. The other voters are to blame. It's very simple: when you make the best possible righteous choice, you are blameless.
      - tolmasky 12y ago
        > Yes, unfortunately. We are effectively slaves, so absent a revolution (or alternative that leads to viable third parties) we don't have a choice about this. > It's very simple: when you make the best possible righteous choice, you are blameless. Ah, but by your own admission, the best possible choice is actually to start a revolution, not to vote for a party that is also evil. So why doesn't your unique take on morality instead assign blamelessness solely to those actively trying to start a revolution, instead of conveniently assigning blamelessness to those that vote for the lesser of two evils but perpetuate a system you admit perpetually ratchets up in evilness? Is it because its easier to tick off something on a piece of paper and tell yourself you're doing your part rather than devoting your life to actually making things better? Seems to me that if you really want to have this black and white view where only, and I quote, those that make "the best possible righteous choice" can be blameless, then you unfortunately fall into that ... other bucket :/
        fargolime 12y ago
        You can support an end to the 2-party oligopoly and vote for the lesser evil. Doing both does greater good. I don't support revolution, because it's not the best viable way to improve things, let alone very viable at this point. A much better way is for the good people to ostracize (as much as possible) the bad people. Imagine if Bush's daughters had disavowed love for him, over his needless violence. It may well have had an effect, and if not then at least been a consequence to him, serving as a warning to others.
zo1 12y ago
Normally, I'd agree with you. Except it's not a 2-party system, it just looks that way because you have two very dominant parties and the choice is always framed as such. And sure, I've even read some stories/pieces that claim that certain processes are actually biased against third parties, etc. Truthfully, you have a few alternatives. Voting third-party, e.g. libertarian or something. Or, you could not vote at all.
- fargolime 12y ago
  Voting third party, or not voting, wastes an opportunity to vote against the greater evil. For example, Bush wouldn't have been elected in 2000 had liberal Nader votes voted for Gore instead. If a third party was dominant on voting day, only then would they be a viable choice worth voting for.
  - dalke 12y ago
    It's much more clearly the fault of the 622 Socialist voters than the Nader voters. Had they voted for Gore instead of David McReynolds then Gore would be in office, and unlike Nader's voter mix, it's more clear that McReynolds's voters would have been Gore voters, not Bush ones. Following your logic, Jesse Ventura would never have been governor of Minnesota as people did not know that he was a dominant candidate on voting day but was polling in third place. Why were the 773,713 Ventura voters wrong to vote as they did? Was it because Humphrey wasn't evil enough?
    - fargolime 12y ago
      You make the best choice with the info you have. If the choice isn't clear then you make a judgment call. Good points on McReynolds and Ventura. I presume that Ventura wasn't polling way below the other candidates, like Nader was in 2000. If he was, a voter couldn't be blamed for voting for someone else deemed viable. If we had vote ranking at the national level, like Minneapolis does, this wouldn't be an issue.
      - dalke 12y ago
einhverfr 12y ago
This is true if and only if you oppose everything evil the ones you elect try to do. But there are a lot of folks who have turned in favor of everything Bush did as long as Obama does it. You can't hide behind "I am trying to at least get the loser on the race to the bottom" if you cheer for that party to win that deplorable sport.
- fargolime 12y ago
  Agreed, that's why I say you are blameless for anything that party does that you disagree with.
  - einhverfr 12y ago
    Change that to that you try to oppose nonetheless and maybe I will agree with you ;-)

When you vote for the lesser evil in a 2-party oligopoly, you are blameless for anything that party does that you disagree with. You made the best possible choice.

tolmasky 12y ago

Interesting thought experiment. What if that party you voted for, which was the lesser of two evils, then commits an act that makes them worse than the other party? Do the people that were previously "on the hook" now switch to being blameless, since, they are now technically the voters of the lesser of two evils, and you now suddenly inherit all the responsibility?

fargolime 12y ago
No. You made the best possible choice when you made it. That's what makes you blameless. If when you made the choice there was strong reason to believe such shift would happen, then your culpability would be less clear.
- tolmasky 12y ago
  Ah ok, so next election though you should definitely vote for the party that was previously unthinkable to vote for, but is now the lesser of two evils and thus the "blameless" choice. So under your system of responsibility, as long as the parties keep one-upping each other in evilness, they can infinitely get worse and no one is ever to blame. Party A is lesser of two evils before the election but then does worse, then party B is lesser but after elected does worse, and so on and so on. Additionally, there is no way to escape this dasterdly plan because as you stated before voting for a third party is off the table because it is the absolute worst option. Yeah, I guess I see how we got to the state we're in with ideas like these.
  - fargolime 12y ago
    > So under your system of responsibility, as long as the parties keep one-upping each other in evilness, they can infinitely get worse Yes, unfortunately. We are effectively slaves, so absent a revolution (or alternative that leads to viable third parties) we don't have a choice about this. > and no one is ever to blame. No. Those who voted for the lesser evil are blameless for the actions they didn't support, until the next election when a new choice is made based on the info at that time. The other voters are to blame. It's very simple: when you make the best possible righteous choice, you are blameless.
    - tolmasky 12y ago
      > Yes, unfortunately. We are effectively slaves, so absent a revolution (or alternative that leads to viable third parties) we don't have a choice about this. > It's very simple: when you make the best possible righteous choice, you are blameless. Ah, but by your own admission, the best possible choice is actually to start a revolution, not to vote for a party that is also evil. So why doesn't your unique take on morality instead assign blamelessness solely to those actively trying to start a revolution, instead of conveniently assigning blamelessness to those that vote for the lesser of two evils but perpetuate a system you admit perpetually ratchets up in evilness? Is it because its easier to tick off something on a piece of paper and tell yourself you're doing your part rather than devoting your life to actually making things better? Seems to me that if you really want to have this black and white view where only, and I quote, those that make "the best possible righteous choice" can be blameless, then you unfortunately fall into that ... other bucket :/
      - fargolime 12y ago
        You can support an end to the 2-party oligopoly and vote for the lesser evil. Doing both does greater good. I don't support revolution, because it's not the best viable way to improve things, let alone very viable at this point. A much better way is for the good people to ostracize (as much as possible) the bad people. Imagine if Bush's daughters had disavowed love for him, over his needless violence. It may well have had an effect, and if not then at least been a consequence to him, serving as a warning to others.

zo1 12y ago

Normally, I'd agree with you. Except it's not a 2-party system, it just looks that way because you have two very dominant parties and the choice is always framed as such. And sure, I've even read some stories/pieces that claim that certain processes are actually biased against third parties, etc. Truthfully, you have a few alternatives. Voting third-party, e.g. libertarian or something. Or, you could not vote at all.

fargolime 12y ago
Voting third party, or not voting, wastes an opportunity to vote against the greater evil. For example, Bush wouldn't have been elected in 2000 had liberal Nader votes voted for Gore instead. If a third party was dominant on voting day, only then would they be a viable choice worth voting for.
- dalke 12y ago
  It's much more clearly the fault of the 622 Socialist voters than the Nader voters. Had they voted for Gore instead of David McReynolds then Gore would be in office, and unlike Nader's voter mix, it's more clear that McReynolds's voters would have been Gore voters, not Bush ones. Following your logic, Jesse Ventura would never have been governor of Minnesota as people did not know that he was a dominant candidate on voting day but was polling in third place. Why were the 773,713 Ventura voters wrong to vote as they did? Was it because Humphrey wasn't evil enough?
  - fargolime 12y ago
    You make the best choice with the info you have. If the choice isn't clear then you make a judgment call. Good points on McReynolds and Ventura. I presume that Ventura wasn't polling way below the other candidates, like Nader was in 2000. If he was, a voter couldn't be blamed for voting for someone else deemed viable. If we had vote ranking at the national level, like Minneapolis does, this wouldn't be an issue.
    - dalke 12y ago

einhverfr 12y ago

This is true if and only if you oppose everything evil the ones you elect try to do. But there are a lot of folks who have turned in favor of everything Bush did as long as Obama does it. You can't hide behind "I am trying to at least get the loser on the race to the bottom" if you cheer for that party to win that deplorable sport.

fargolime 12y ago
Agreed, that's why I say you are blameless for anything that party does that you disagree with.
- einhverfr 12y ago
  Change that to that you try to oppose nonetheless and maybe I will agree with you ;-)