4 ms·

This is so ridiculous. It allows half the country to feel blameless by believing they're voting for the "lesser evil". You're not blameless for voting for the l

This is so ridiculous. It allows half the country to feel blameless by believing they're voting for the "lesser evil". You're not blameless for voting for the less-bad of two bad options. You still voting for a bad option. This image comes to mind whenever people talk bring up this kind of thinking. http://i.imgur.com/afp9dQp.jpg http://i.imgur.com/afp9dQp.jpg Additionally, the threat of one of the major parties losing votes to a third party has been shown to influence the politics of the major party, so even if the third-party candidate doesn't win, it still may have a positive effect down the road. People don't seem to think very far down the road, unfortunately.

fargolime 12y ago
> You're not blameless for voting for the less-bad of two bad options. You still voting for a bad option. There's no contradiction. You made the best viable choice. You can't be made "bad" by doing that. That benefit of voting for a non-viable third party is outweighed by the advantage of voting for a lesser evil that can viably win. If hypothetically you were the voter that could tip the election to Gore in 2000, your best choice is to vote for him, not Nader, even if voting for Nader has some benefit. Voting for Nader could be reasonable only if Gore had no realistic chance of winning your state.
- dalke 12y ago
  If hypothetically you could have secretly ruined votes for Bush for Palm Beach county - would you have? Assuming your logic has merit, the benefit for you not committing voter fraud is surely outweighed by the benefit of not letting the Great Evil Bush get power, making voter fraud the best viable choice, no? Why would voter fraud be "bad"? Surely even the worst case of spending a couple of years in jail is worth the future of not having Bush in charge, right? Are you ready to commit voter fraud for what you think is the greater good? Are you ready to torture for the greater good?
  - fargolime 12y ago
    I support torture where it's clear it's the best viable choice to prevent greater violence. That may be an exceptionally rare case. On your hypothetical I'll say only that I strongly support the The Congressional Oath of Office, namely this part: > I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same That said, the best ways to effect change are still legal, like general strikes and boycotts.
    - dalke 12y ago
      That's the same oath all the military torturers took, right? And the same one that Cheney swore (or affirmed)? Who says he would order the torture again? If you'll torture for that oath then you'll commit voter fraud for that oath, and commit murder and other felonies for that oath. You'll do anything so long as you can justify it with your consequentialist ethics. Glad to know where you stand. Or rather don't stand, since your ethics allow you to break that oath to prevent greater violence. And you get to decide which is greater. Which is why the death of thousands in 2001 justify the torture of innocent people now. Our employed and elected torturers got to decide which of those was the greater violence, without making that information public, as it was clear to them that that was the right choice with the information they had.
      - fargolime 12y ago
        No, adhering to the oath excludes torture or other violence that isn't the best choice to prevent greater violence. I haven't yet seen a 9/11 related case where the details justified torture. Clearly our "employed and elected torturers" flouted their oaths. My ethics are rock solid and will never break the oath.
        dalke 12y ago
        Let me get this straight. Your oath prevents you from taking untaxed intoxicating liquors across state lines, no matter what violence you might be able to prevent by doing so, or the lives you might save (it's a violation of the 21st Amendment to take that moonshine across the state line to use an emergency anesthesia for a backwoods accident where the person needs an amputation), but you believe there may be times where your oath would let you torture someone, in violation of national laws and international treaties? That's messed up. And you've just relied on the No True Scotsman fallacy. Obviously anyone who doesn't interpret your oath the same as you do must have flouted it. Or perhaps it's Cheney who says you flouted the oath. How do I tell again who's right? Oliver North was photogenically insistent that selling arms to Iran, in violation of US law, in order to fund the Contras against the democratically elected Sandinista government, was part of his oath. The enemy had become "liberal politicians, gutless judges and left-handed journalists" says one biography. I'm pretty sure he believes his ethics are "rock solid" and oath unbroken. How am I to tell if it's broken?

fargolime 12y ago

> You're not blameless for voting for the less-bad of two bad options. You still voting for a bad option. There's no contradiction. You made the best viable choice. You can't be made "bad" by doing that. That benefit of voting for a non-viable third party is outweighed by the advantage of voting for a lesser evil that can viably win. If hypothetically you were the voter that could tip the election to Gore in 2000, your best choice is to vote for him, not Nader, even if voting for Nader has some benefit. Voting for Nader could be reasonable only if Gore had no realistic chance of winning your state.

dalke 12y ago
If hypothetically you could have secretly ruined votes for Bush for Palm Beach county - would you have? Assuming your logic has merit, the benefit for you not committing voter fraud is surely outweighed by the benefit of not letting the Great Evil Bush get power, making voter fraud the best viable choice, no? Why would voter fraud be "bad"? Surely even the worst case of spending a couple of years in jail is worth the future of not having Bush in charge, right? Are you ready to commit voter fraud for what you think is the greater good? Are you ready to torture for the greater good?
- fargolime 12y ago
  I support torture where it's clear it's the best viable choice to prevent greater violence. That may be an exceptionally rare case. On your hypothetical I'll say only that I strongly support the The Congressional Oath of Office, namely this part: > I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same That said, the best ways to effect change are still legal, like general strikes and boycotts.
  - dalke 12y ago
    That's the same oath all the military torturers took, right? And the same one that Cheney swore (or affirmed)? Who says he would order the torture again? If you'll torture for that oath then you'll commit voter fraud for that oath, and commit murder and other felonies for that oath. You'll do anything so long as you can justify it with your consequentialist ethics. Glad to know where you stand. Or rather don't stand, since your ethics allow you to break that oath to prevent greater violence. And you get to decide which is greater. Which is why the death of thousands in 2001 justify the torture of innocent people now. Our employed and elected torturers got to decide which of those was the greater violence, without making that information public, as it was clear to them that that was the right choice with the information they had.
    - fargolime 12y ago
      No, adhering to the oath excludes torture or other violence that isn't the best choice to prevent greater violence. I haven't yet seen a 9/11 related case where the details justified torture. Clearly our "employed and elected torturers" flouted their oaths. My ethics are rock solid and will never break the oath.
      - dalke 12y ago
        Let me get this straight. Your oath prevents you from taking untaxed intoxicating liquors across state lines, no matter what violence you might be able to prevent by doing so, or the lives you might save (it's a violation of the 21st Amendment to take that moonshine across the state line to use an emergency anesthesia for a backwoods accident where the person needs an amputation), but you believe there may be times where your oath would let you torture someone, in violation of national laws and international treaties? That's messed up. And you've just relied on the No True Scotsman fallacy. Obviously anyone who doesn't interpret your oath the same as you do must have flouted it. Or perhaps it's Cheney who says you flouted the oath. How do I tell again who's right? Oliver North was photogenically insistent that selling arms to Iran, in violation of US law, in order to fund the Contras against the democratically elected Sandinista government, was part of his oath. The enemy had become "liberal politicians, gutless judges and left-handed journalists" says one biography. I'm pretty sure he believes his ethics are "rock solid" and oath unbroken. How am I to tell if it's broken?