You're viewing part of a thread.
-
In a two-party, first-past-the-post system you kinda have an ethical obligation to vote for the lesser evil. It’s just a statistical fact you can’t ignore.
Not really, but you're free to believe that.
The ethical stance to take against 2 evil candidates is to support neither. Supporting the lesser evil makes useful idiots think that they're winning and therefore stop fighting back.
Any ire you direct towards the people who don't support evil candidates would be better spent directed towards those who do support evil candidates. i.e. don't waste your breath arguing with non-voters, dedicate that energy towards the people who keep supporting candidates that don't represent their interests.
It’s just a statistical fact you can’t ignore.
Actually, the people who refuse to support evil candidates are a statistical fact you can't ignore.
Since we're talking facts, let me lay another one on you. All you people do when you get mad at me for not voting is reinforce my decision to keep doing it. I'm not going to cave to look good in front of ya'll, I genuinely don't care what most of you think.
Either run a candidate that supports the working class, or I'm not voting for them.
-
The ethical stance to take against 2 evil candidates is to support neither.
This may be the ethical thing to do. However, ethical is not always the best.
By not voting the lesser evil, you allowed the more evil to win the elections.
The percentage of non-voting people has no direct impact to the end result. In a perfect democratic world, that non-voting majority would sign the elected government to be more careful with their decisions, as people are loosing trust. In the current state of "democracy", a fascist just took over and started dismantling the country.
-
I've mentioned before how the problem with the lesser evil is that useful idiots stop fighting.
Since neither side really cares about solving the problems that face us as a species, it's a loss no matter what.
-
-
You're conflating voting for someone with supporting them. I didn't support Hillary or Kamala but I still voted for them because the alternative was so much worse. That's just the shitty reality of our two-party, fptp voting system.
In this system, one of those two parties will win regardless of how you specifically cast or don't cast your vote. The time to fight for the ideal candidate is the four years leading up to the election. When you get to the ballot box, you really just have to swallow what's perfect and pick what's not terrible (at least in that moment).
Supporting the lesser evil makes useful idiots think that they're winning and therefore stop fighting back.
But the alternative is effectively accelerationism, throwing millions of people under the bus, and hoping that things shake out in your favor after a violent revolution. Which... I don't agree with as a plan, but we're kind of already on this path so 🤷♂️.
Also, I'm not mad at you. And I think I largely agree with you, with anger at the system and candidate selection. I just don't agree with you about casting your vote being the time and place to stage a protest (in a system like ours at least).
-
No, I'm not conflating anything. I'm referring directly to the people that supported hillary clinton over Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary.
I just don’t agree with you about casting your vote being the time and place to stage a protest (in a system like ours at least).
It's fine for us to disagree on this. Perhaps more fascism will eventually cause you to advocate for doing something different.
I can say with certainty that trying to argue with me about why I should support the lesser evil is a complete waste of your time and energy.
-
I can say with certainty that trying to argue with me about why I should support the lesser evil is a complete waste of your time and energy.
Well, I guess we'll just have to agree on that then.
-
-
-