• Kaigyo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I get the frustration but this is a bad take.

    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.

    It fucking blows, but if your choices are the shitty status quo or full blown fascism, you really should pick the status quo.

    Obviously doesn’t fix the problem with the Democrat party sliding further and further right since they can continue to claim “lesser evil”… and it also doesn’t fix the DNC superdelegate shenanigans that got us Hillary instead of Bernie… but I’d rather the country be able to still exist to fight another day.

    • cool@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      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.

      • jim3692@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 hours ago

        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 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.

        • cool@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 hours ago

          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.