5 ms·

Not voting or voting for a third party is worse than voting for the lesser evil of the only 2 viable parties.

by fargolime 12y ago

donall 12y ago
[Citation needed]
- fargolime 12y ago
  Citation won't be given. Downvote instead (it's a throwaway).
  - zo1 12y ago
    So you call people out on hiding behind their votes, and that we should alienate those that cast their votes we disagree with. ...and then you admit you're using a throwaway account here. Ironically, you're hiding behind your throwaway account instead of posting it under your real account/persona. Precisely because you are afraid that people will do what you told them is the best way to fix this problem of government we're discussing, and alienate/shun you for your views..
    - fargolime 12y ago
      Ah, but my choice is for good, not evil, and harms no one. Sorry, but you'll not find a hole in my logic regarding ethics; it's flawless.
gizmo686 12y ago
Voting for a third party sends a message to the two actual parties that they could get your vote if they took <distinguishing position of your third party>. Obviously, an single vote for a third party will not make a difference, but a single vote for a main party won't make a difference anyway. However, if a third party gets even 1% of the votes, then the two main parties would notice that and think about what they can do to win that 1% of the voting population.
- fargolime 12y ago
  Liberal Nader voters in 2000 were partly responsible for Bush getting elected, because they could have prevented it. Absent instant run-off voting or some other way that a third party can be viable, voting for a third party simply wastes an opportunity to vote against the greater evil. It sends no viable message. The 2 main parties will give it no weight whatsoever, as they have total control.
  - donall 12y ago
    This is the second time you've categorised it as choosing "the lesser evil". I don't think that's what the system was designed to be. It sounds to me like it's so far off the rails that the real lesser evil choice is to refuse to participate in the process and rob it of its credibility. If I vote for the losing party, I implicitly agree to abide by the choices made by the winning party because I would expect the same from their supporters if the roles were reversed. None of the parties represent my interests, so I don't vote and I certainly don't agree to respect the decisions made by those who don't represent my interests. To tie it back in with the original point, those who voted against Bush implicitly agreed to abide by his decisions if he won. Only those who refuse to participate in the system can claim zero complicity.
    - kefka 12y ago
      > I don't think that's what the system was designed to be. I think it would require some proof to what design you are referring to.
    - fargolime 12y ago
      > It sounds to me like it's so far off the rails that the real lesser evil choice is to refuse to participate in the process and rob it of its credibility. The result of refusing to participate is that you lose even more freedom to pursue happiness. Your captors don't care a whit about credibility. > None of the parties represent my interests, so I don't vote and I certainly don't agree to respect the decisions made by those who don't represent my interests. Then you waste an opportunity to help prevent greater evil from happening. You needn't agree with the lesser evil when you vote for them. > To tie it back in with the original point, those who voted against Bush implicitly agreed to abide by his decisions if he won. Only those who refuse to participate in the system can claim zero complicity. The good people who didn't vote in 2000 could have prevented a needless war from happening. They had the opportunity, so they are complicit. Only those who voted for the lesser evil can claim zero complicity.
einhverfr 12y ago
Discussing politics with people on the other side of the isle and finding common ground is frankly more important than voting today.
- fargolime 12y ago
  One can do both, although making a worse choice at the polls usually goes hand-in-hand with a closed mind, in my experience.
  - einhverfr 12y ago
    My point is: the parties no longer represent us. We are lead to fight over wedge issues while the elites take everything. A vote doesn't matter by itself either. The only way a vote will have any impact is if you use it to add just a little sting to any political activity you do elsewhere. If your only political action is voting, you might as well stay home. The only real hope is if a large bipartisan alliance forms. That's more important than if we get Romney or Obama as President (two candidates who are mostly different in terms of party affiliation and skin color, but not in terms of approaches to governance).

Not voting or voting for a third party is worse than voting for the lesser evil of the only 2 viable parties.

donall 12y ago

[Citation needed]

fargolime 12y ago
Citation won't be given. Downvote instead (it's a throwaway).
- zo1 12y ago
  So you call people out on hiding behind their votes, and that we should alienate those that cast their votes we disagree with. ...and then you admit you're using a throwaway account here. Ironically, you're hiding behind your throwaway account instead of posting it under your real account/persona. Precisely because you are afraid that people will do what you told them is the best way to fix this problem of government we're discussing, and alienate/shun you for your views..
  - fargolime 12y ago
    Ah, but my choice is for good, not evil, and harms no one. Sorry, but you'll not find a hole in my logic regarding ethics; it's flawless.

gizmo686 12y ago

Voting for a third party sends a message to the two actual parties that they could get your vote if they took <distinguishing position of your third party>. Obviously, an single vote for a third party will not make a difference, but a single vote for a main party won't make a difference anyway. However, if a third party gets even 1% of the votes, then the two main parties would notice that and think about what they can do to win that 1% of the voting population.

fargolime 12y ago
Liberal Nader voters in 2000 were partly responsible for Bush getting elected, because they could have prevented it. Absent instant run-off voting or some other way that a third party can be viable, voting for a third party simply wastes an opportunity to vote against the greater evil. It sends no viable message. The 2 main parties will give it no weight whatsoever, as they have total control.
- donall 12y ago
  This is the second time you've categorised it as choosing "the lesser evil". I don't think that's what the system was designed to be. It sounds to me like it's so far off the rails that the real lesser evil choice is to refuse to participate in the process and rob it of its credibility. If I vote for the losing party, I implicitly agree to abide by the choices made by the winning party because I would expect the same from their supporters if the roles were reversed. None of the parties represent my interests, so I don't vote and I certainly don't agree to respect the decisions made by those who don't represent my interests. To tie it back in with the original point, those who voted against Bush implicitly agreed to abide by his decisions if he won. Only those who refuse to participate in the system can claim zero complicity.
  - kefka 12y ago
    > I don't think that's what the system was designed to be. I think it would require some proof to what design you are referring to.
  - fargolime 12y ago
    > It sounds to me like it's so far off the rails that the real lesser evil choice is to refuse to participate in the process and rob it of its credibility. The result of refusing to participate is that you lose even more freedom to pursue happiness. Your captors don't care a whit about credibility. > None of the parties represent my interests, so I don't vote and I certainly don't agree to respect the decisions made by those who don't represent my interests. Then you waste an opportunity to help prevent greater evil from happening. You needn't agree with the lesser evil when you vote for them. > To tie it back in with the original point, those who voted against Bush implicitly agreed to abide by his decisions if he won. Only those who refuse to participate in the system can claim zero complicity. The good people who didn't vote in 2000 could have prevented a needless war from happening. They had the opportunity, so they are complicit. Only those who voted for the lesser evil can claim zero complicity.

einhverfr 12y ago

Discussing politics with people on the other side of the isle and finding common ground is frankly more important than voting today.

fargolime 12y ago
One can do both, although making a worse choice at the polls usually goes hand-in-hand with a closed mind, in my experience.
- einhverfr 12y ago
  My point is: the parties no longer represent us. We are lead to fight over wedge issues while the elites take everything. A vote doesn't matter by itself either. The only way a vote will have any impact is if you use it to add just a little sting to any political activity you do elsewhere. If your only political action is voting, you might as well stay home. The only real hope is if a large bipartisan alliance forms. That's more important than if we get Romney or Obama as President (two candidates who are mostly different in terms of party affiliation and skin color, but not in terms of approaches to governance).