The "Lesser of Two Evils" Thread

[lizzie]

All of the folks that have regurgitated the message that voting for a 3rd party is wasting your vote really need to back it up with something that can quantify the statement.

Just as an example, generally 15% of the population holds libertarian views, and a much smaller percentage actually votes that way. Democrats and republicans hold the vast majority. Democrats are unlikely to vote libertarian because they support large government and social programs. Republicans are unlikely to vote libertarian because they support large defense expenditures and they oppose any type of drug legalization. This puts libertarians in a permanent small minority. That being the case, if you vote libertarian, you are wasting your vote as compared to the actual voting outcome, but you can vote libertarian as a matter of personal ethics.

 

[radcen]

As long as you and everyone else who dislikes the major candidates continue to think that way you are only making the problem worse. Because a vote for a candidate not only contributes to putting that candidate in office, it is also an endorsement of everything that candidate stands for. Which means that the next time another presidential election comes around those major parties are going to try to prop up candidates similar but usually worse than the ones people voted for in the previous primaries and presidential election.In other words if you keep voting for the **** sandwich or giant douche then that is what you are going to get the next presidential election.

Exactly.

If the desired movement away from our present two-party virtual monopoly system... which so many people claim to dislike/despise... doesn't start with somebody beginning the foundation and taking a stand and voting their conscience, then exactly where does it start?

 

[Kr1ll1n]

Just as an example, generally 15% of the population holds libertarian views, and a much smaller percentage actually votes that way. Democrats and republicans hold the vast majority. Democrats are unlikely to vote libertarian because they support large government and social programs. Republicans are unlikely to vote libertarian because they support large defense expenditures and they oppose any type of drug legalization. This puts libertarians in a permanent small minority. That being the case, if you vote libertarian, you are wasting your vote as compared to the actual voting outcome, but you can vote libertarian as a matter of personal ethics.

Lizzie, please see the 2 links I included. The fact is, both the Republican and Democrat organizations disenfranchised their own voters during the conventions. I highly doubt those disenfranchised voters are going to grin and bear it and vote for Romney or Obama.

 

[lizzie]

Lizzie, please see the 2 links I included. The fact is, both the Republican and Democrat organizations disenfranchised their own voters during the conventions. I highly doubt those disenfranchised voters are going to grin and bear it and vote for Romney or Obama.

They likely will grin and bear it, as their major considerations are ideological in nature, and they want the money flow directed in their favor.

 

[Kr1ll1n]

It occurred to me as I was on my way back to work from lunch, that their seems to be two identifiable mindsets involved with voters, and I don't believe they are being adequately discussed or considered;

1. Voting to ensure a given candidate has support and approval to represent this country.
2. Voting to ensure that a particular candidate is prevented from representing this country.

I have not heard the argument represented in this way.

I can concede now that both are conscience led votes, but the core issue is still the presence of fear in reason number 2.
To the major political parties that dominate this country and have created, fostered, and encouraged the second mindset, well played.

 

[radcen]

It occurred to me as I was on my way back to work from lunch, that their seems to be two identifiable mindsets involved with voters, and I don't believe they are being adequately discussed or considered;

1. Voting to ensure a given candidate has support and approval to represent this country.
2. Voting to ensure that a particular candidate is prevented from representing this country.

I have not heard the argument represented in this way.

I can concede now that both are conscience led votes, but the core issue is still the presence of fear in reason number 2.
To the major political parties that dominate this country and have created, fostered, and encouraged the second mindset, well played.

The only exception I would make that would cause me to consciously vote the "lesser of two evils" would be if the difference were so drastic and dramatic that I felt the country would be taken into a literal tailspin if one of them were to be elected. A real Marxist, or a real Fascist. Not a faux-Marxist (Obama) or a faux-Fascist (Bush II) as hyperbole likes to say in today's politics.

This election does not qualify because, for the most part, there won't be that much difference between Obama or Romney. The President doesn't have that much direct influence on the economy, and regardless what either one likes to say regarding socials issues, neither one will get to enact their vision completely because there will be opposition that will thwart them. In other words, in the full spectrum of what is possible on paper, the net end result won't vary much from one to the other, or from what we have now.

 

[rathi]

In California, you might as well vote for Johnson over Romney if you think he is the better candidate. Sure Johnson has no chance of carrying the state, but neither does Romney. Outside swing states, you can't really throw away your vote if it is already meaningless.

 

[gingern44]

Just as an example, generally 15% of the population holds libertarian views, and a much smaller percentage actually votes that way. Democrats and republicans hold the vast majority. Democrats are unlikely to vote libertarian because they support large government and social programs. Republicans are unlikely to vote libertarian because they support large defense expenditures and they oppose any type of drug legalization. This puts libertarians in a permanent small minority. That being the case, if you vote libertarian, you are wasting your vote as compared to the actual voting outcome, but you can vote libertarian as a matter of personal ethics.

We need to get the libertarians to work in concert. It would be the most powerful group in the country. 15% would be a hell of a "swing" vote.

 

[radcen]

We need to get the libertarians to work in concert. It would be the most powerful group in the country. 15% would be a hell of a "swing" vote.

But... that would require libertarians to become what they despise... an organized political party with an agenda. :2razz:

Truly organized, I mean, not just a loose organization in name only.

 

[PrometheusBound]

In 2000, the people who threw away their votes on Ralph Nader's third party got Bush elected. Throwing a ballot tantrum just because you can't have everything your own way is not going to get you anywhere.

 

[radcen]

In 2000, the people who threw away their votes on Ralph Nader's third party got Bush elected. Throwing a ballot tantrum just because you can't have everything your own way is not going to get you anywhere.

So, you vote for the "less bad" candidate and you're still unhappy. Meanwhile, the political machine lumbers along uninterrupted. Yeah, you sure showed them.

 

[PrometheusBound]

So, you vote for the "less bad" candidate and you're still unhappy. Meanwhile, the political machine lumbers along uninterrupted. Yeah, you sure showed them.

What do you show them by helping your worst candidate win?

 

[lizzie]

But... that would require libertarians to become what they despise... an organized political party with an agenda. :2razz:

Truly organized, I mean, not just a loose organization in name only.

I don't consider having an agenda which includes maximizing freedom and smaller government, a bad agenda.

 

[radcen]

What do you show them by helping your worst candidate win?

If it doesn't start with a few people, where does it start?

I don't consider having an agenda which includes maximizing freedom and smaller government, a bad agenda.

Oh, I don't disagree. Just saying that libertarians would have to become part of government before they could reduce government. They would have to actively organize, run (and win) at state and local levels in addition to federal, and a whole bunch of stuff that would be naturally unnatural to them.

 

[lizzie]

Oh, I don't disagree. Just saying that libertarians would have to become part of government before they could reduce government. They would have to actively organize, run (and win) at state and local levels in addition to federal, and a whole bunch of stuff that would be naturally unnatural to them.

Just going by my own impulses, I agree, and I think the reason why it seems unnatural, is because of our very belief in the importance of individuality, and a dedication to paving our own way in the world, regardless of other people who wish otherwise.

 

[Kr1ll1n]

I love that, 4 pages in, all those that have echoed the "Throwing your vote away\Helping the bad guy win" have not denied the claim that they are consumed by fear.

Cowards and Traitors. The whole lot of them.

 

[molten_dragon]

I would rather vote my conscience, than vote and be ashamed of myself.

I'm not ashamed of myself based on who I vote for. What would give you that idea?

A vote is an answer to a question. That question is "Who do you think would represent the country, and by proxy, yourself, the best?" If you can't answer that honestly, than what are you even doing casting a ballot?

To you maybe that's what a vote means. It doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. To me, a vote is the answer to the question "Which of the two major party candidates do I think will do the best job running the country?". Because those are the only two candidates that have a realistic chance of winning the election. Personally, I don't understand why people vote for a candidate that they are absolutely, 100% certain will not win the election. That's okay though, people can vote for lots of different candidates for lots of different reasons. That's what democracy is. There's no objectively right or wrong way to do it.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I love that, 4 pages in, all those that have echoed the "Throwing your vote away\Helping the bad guy win" have not denied the claim that they are consumed by fear.

Cowards and Traitors. The whole lot of them.

I think the Democrats who hated Bush consider Nader to be a self-centered traitor who threw the 2000 election to the Republicans. Libertarians are lazy and childish spoiled brats who don't have the patience and maturity to build their own party or take over the GOP.
Maybe you should follow the example of your Atlas Shrugged heroes and all go running scared to hide in a valley far away from all the real Americans you despise. Contrary to your greedhead claims, we won't miss you parasites at all.

 

[molten_dragon]

As long as you and everyone else who dislikes the major candidates continue to think that way you are only making the problem worse. Because a vote for a candidate not only contributes to putting that candidate in office, it is also an endorsement of everything that candidate stands for. Which means that the next time another presidential election comes around those major parties are going to try to prop up candidates similar but usually worse than the ones people voted for in the previous primaries and presidential election.In other words if you keep voting for the **** sandwich or giant douche then that is what you are going to get the next presidential election.

I think you're vastly overestimating how much the parties care about people who vote 3rd party. I seriously doubt that they're going to change who they choose to represent them based on who a few 3rd-party voters voted on.

And I do realize that I'm not helping the situation by continuing to vote for a major party candidate even if I like a 3rd-party candidate better. But the way I see it, I only control my own vote, and my one vote going to a 3rd-party candidate is not going to raise their chance of being elected (i.e. it will remain zero), and it's not going to make anyone in the major parties "wake up" and decide to do things differently. It would take millions of votes for that to have a realistic chance of happening, and I don't control millions of votes. So until something changes about the political system in the US, or the way we run our elections, I'll continue to vote for a candidate that actually has a chance of winning.

What you are choosing to do, in reality, is perpetuating the status quo.

While that's true, my voting for a 3rd party candidate won't change anything either.

 

[Kr1ll1n]

I think the Democrats who hated Bush consider Nader to be a self-centered traitor who threw the 2000 election to the Republicans. Libertarians are lazy and childish spoiled brats who don't have the patience and maturity to build their own party or take over the GOP.
Maybe you should follow the example of your Atlas Shrugged heroes and all go running scared to hide in a valley far away from all the real Americans you despise. Contrary to your greedhead claims, we won't miss you parasites at all.

Wow, just....Wow.

1. Libertarians are lazy and childish? The same could be said for many democrats, but note what I am saying. "many" does not equal "all".
2. Don't have the patience to build their own party? What do you believe the Libertarian Party is? Yes, you can register as a Libertarian.
3. Since i have never read Atlas Shrugged, I honestly cannot comment on this.

In closing, maybe you should learn to talk out of your mouth as opposed to your ass.

 

[Kr1ll1n]

I think you're vastly overestimating how much the parties care about people who vote 3rd party. I seriously doubt that they're going to change who they choose to represent them based on who a few 3rd-party voters voted on.

And I do realize that I'm not helping the situation by continuing to vote for a major party candidate even if I like a 3rd-party candidate better. But the way I see it, I only control my own vote, and my one vote going to a 3rd-party candidate is not going to raise their chance of being elected (i.e. it will remain zero), and it's not going to make anyone in the major parties "wake up" and decide to do things differently. It would take millions of votes for that to have a realistic chance of happening, and I don't control millions of votes. So until something changes about the political system in the US, or the way we run our elections, I'll continue to vote for a candidate that actually has a chance of winning.



While that's true, my voting for a 3rd party candidate won't change anything either.

Results of Presidential Elections - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Look at 1852 and 1856. The Whig party was demolished by its own hand, and the Republican party replaced it.
Apparently, back then, people did not succumb to the notion that voting for someone they truly feel was best qualified, was as a waste.
Though, the party dissolved itself and fractured due to its own decisions and choices;

Whig Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The party was ultimately destroyed by the question of whether to allow the expansion of slavery to the territories. With deep fissures in the party on this question, the anti-slavery faction prevented the re-nomination of its own incumbent President Fillmore in the 1852 presidential election; instead, the party nominated General Winfield Scott. Most Whig party leaders thereupon quit politics (as Lincoln did temporarily) or changed parties.

What is different now is that while the two major players have angered and disenfranchised their own base, many of their base keep coming right back to them as if they suffer from a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Helix]

the only wasted vote is a vote not cast. also, i don't believe that if you vote for a candidate with no chance, you have have voted for the opposition.

if it's important to a person to vote for "the lesser of two evils," though, i also don't have a problem with that. it's your vote. use it.

 

[Kr1ll1n]

the only wasted vote is a vote not cast.

No disagreement here.

also, i don't believe that if you vote for a candidate with no chance, you have have voted for the opposition.

I unquestionably agree.
If two people represent groups that have raped, robbed, and pillaged the society I live in, than I have no issues taking any outside help I can get to defeat them.
I sure as hell won't give either my support to continue doing it.

if it's important to a person to vote for "the lesser of two evils," though, i also don't have a problem with that. it's your vote. use it.

If they feel the lesser of two evils aligns close enough with their own perception of fair representation, than yes. However, they wouldn't be considered the "lesser of two evils" if that were the case.

 

[Helix]

If they feel the lesser of two evils aligns close enough with their own perception of fair representation, than yes.

granted. this is my own standard.

 

[Kr1ll1n]

granted. this is my own standard.

But, as I actually stated, would they even apply "the lesser of two evils" moniker if that were actually true?