Voting the lesser of two evils

[Just_Lurking]

When Arnold Schwarzenegger become governor of California in 2003, there were people who claimed that a vote for Arnold was really just a vote for the other party. It turns out that they were mistaken - A vote for Arnold was actually a vote for Arnold.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please remember that discussions of particular political parties or figures are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[TEPO]

I was wondering what people here thought. I find that there aren’t any politicians that I agree with 100%. I often tell people that I don’t think that I could even vote for myself if I ran for office. That being said, I think that if you don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, you are essentially voting for the “Most Evil”. What say ye?

Voters are so impatient! To say that voting for the lesser evil will prevent more harm right now has absolutely zero effect on accomplishing our future agenda. It’s catch 22…

Why not remove our blinders and create the change needed by voting for third party candidates to break the bipolar cycle that continues to tie us down.

…Our agenda should be to break the cycle. period. True freedom depends on our ability to make real choices. Right now, politics are so black and white.

 

[TEPO]

And their chances will never improve if people don’t vote for them just because they “never stand a chance of being elected”.

And by not voting for the candidates you really like all you do is help perpetuate the status quo.

In short this outlook is self defeating.

Wrong - and I say that for two reasons.

1. If you vote for who you like it encourages that person / party - especially third party candidates. Your vote is not lost in the throng.
2. Most elections are not wan my any great margin. The more votes that go to third parties, the greater influence such parties can have. The reasons being that if the major parties see votes draining off to other parties, they start modifying their agenda in order to lure voters back.

I don’t say the above to single you out…I read about this same outlook and every season I respond as I have here.

We have two possible ways to truly influence change. Through the voting booth and the political process - or through rebellion.
Rebellions are extremely hard to control and once out of hand, who knows what the outcome would be.
I would much prefer a more peaceful route…If that is still possible…

I agree with this to an extent although ultimately I don’t think it is the “corruption” that is the biggest problem…Instead it is the bureaucracy - the more the actual governance is isolated from the voters the more dangerous it becomes. Bureaucracies do this, they isolate the actual governance from the actual voters. Theoretically they are answerable to congress who is answerable to us - but now there are so many layers and interconnections and they are so pervasive that Congress simply cannot police them - and doesn’t really try.

That’s my 2 cents…

Peace
James

James. Youre right on spot!

 

[TEPO]

On the contrary, my refusal to vote reflects my refusal to endorse the homicidal political consensus which currently exists in this country. I will not burn this particular pinch of incense to Caesar.

Is there any chance you would work towards an ‘agenda’…? We all have one. Perhaps you and I and others like us could work on tearing down the walls of confinement by simply voting for third party candidates…

 

[TEPO]

Here’s my agenda… To split the democratic party and the republican parties in half.

…As far as I can tell there are four major types under the two economic ideologies:
LEFT
-non-religious progressives (the Bill Mahrs)
-Christian moralists * (The Catholic Bishops)

RIGHT
-constitutionalists * (the tea party types)
-neocons (the John McCains)

–non religious progressives and neocons being the far left and right, while Christian moralists and constitutionalists are more in-the-middle.

…If we could just split the left and the right in half, I’d be happy.

 

[TEPO]

Actually Cicero wrote, *Primum minima de malis *(Of evils choose the LEAST.)

The greatest evil is to allow the walls of confinement to barricade us inside these prison walls -where our work is left unaccomplished…

 

[JRKH]

Voters are so impatient! To say that voting for the lesser evil will prevent more harm right now has absolutely zero effect on accomplishing our future agenda. It’s catch 22…

Amen - I find that more and more the “lesser of two evils” still contains too much “evil”.
It can be a tricky balancing act because we will likely never find someone that we totally agree with. But then if we falsely limit ourselves to those who “have a chance of winning”, we severely limit our chance to make a profound statement at the polls.

Why not remove our blinders and create the change needed by voting for third party candidates to break the bipolar cycle that continues to tie us down.

…Our agenda should be to break the cycle. period. True freedom depends on our ability to make real choices. Right now, politics are so black and white.

Amen and halleluiah - - -
We are seeing now the effect of limiting ourselves to just two parties that are so broad based that there is little real difference between them. It’s virtually a one party system with two names - with a few factions within them.
This - tied to a ever growing socially invasive bureaucracy who is increasingly autonomous from the law making process is resulting in impotence and gridlock in congress and an ever more “government dependent” population.

I don’t think it’s a conspiracy…It’s just the way things are working out…

In my opinion, third party voting and perhaps a need for peaceful civil disobedience has the best chance of truly effecting change.
But these will only work if a sufficient portion of the population has the hutzpa to step up…

More and more I think of Ben Franklin’s words at the close of the Constitutional convention.
…there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. (Bolded mine)
Full text here.
I fear more and more that we are, for the most part, already thus corrupted - by our ever increasing reliance on “big brother” that we, as a nation, will not recover…

Voting third party wherever possible is my small voice crying in the wilderness…

Peace
James

 

[jritenour]

Just curious - How does one “prove” that a vote does or does not matter??

Peace
James

Mine was a rhetorical question Is there any rule issued that says we must vote?

 

[JRKH]

Mine was a rhetorical question Is there any rule issued that says we must vote?

While I can’t point to the specific document - I believe the Church does teach that we are obligated to vote…

The thing that must be remembered is that we - all of us - DO vote…even our absence is a vote.

The one who chooses not to go to the polls is simply voting, “I don’t care”.

Peace
James

 

[TARRAT]

Some here are suggesting that a third party is the way to go. To be honest with you I haven’t seen any that swept me off my feet, some of the ideas are great but the “whole ball of wax” isn’t there either.

We must remember that we have a two party system. Like it or not that is the process we have. There is great organization and financing in that system and any third party candidate is really just whistling in the wind. The best way to change the system is probably not to totally overthrow it but work within it.

 

[Bookcat]

But won’t voting for the lesser of two evils by definition mean that you are voting for at a partial good.

I do not* vote* for any evil…nor would I imagine do you. You vote for the good.

(in anycase refer to the CA voters guide for detailed info on voting)

 

[TEPO]

Some here are suggesting that a third party is the way to go. To be honest with you I haven’t seen any that swept me off my feet, some of the ideas are great but the “whole ball of wax” isn’t there either .

But I thought the whole point was that neither of the current two big parties swept you off your feet either. The idea of voting with the sole agenda of ‘building up’ more parties sends a clear message to politicians that their platforms will not be tolerated anymore.

We must remember that we have a two party system. Like it or not that is the process we have. There is great organization and financing in that system and any third party candidate is really just whistling in the wind. The best way to change the system is probably not to totally overthrow it but work within it.

With the current two party system, and the belief that it cannot change allows the government to control the people. With more partys the people would control the government -which is the true meaning of a democracy.

 

[JRKH]

Some here are suggesting that a third party is the way to go. To be honest with you I haven’t seen any that swept me off my feet, some of the ideas are great but the “whole ball of wax” isn’t there either.

This is entirely possible…No one here is espousing any particular person or group. Those suggesting third parties are doing so in order to get people to think outside of the fiction of the - so called - two party system.

We must remember that we have a two party system.
Like it or not that is the process we have.

Actually - while a “two party system” is what has evolved, this is nowhere enshrined in our system of government.
In fact - if one were to go back through American history one would find that there have been several dominant parties over the decades. It hasn’t always been “Democrat” or “Republican”…and there have been, at times, strong “third parties”. The Grangers is one that jumps to mind.

There is great organization and financing in that system…

You are quite right about the organization and financing…but what’s your point in this? That it’s difficult for third parties to get the word out and make a dent in the “big boys”?
How true is that today when there is internet and social media? How expensive is it to conduct a grass roots campaign these days?
All that the organization and money argument shows is that - maybe - the majority of voters are not willing to look too closely…that they prefer to be choose from the commercials that they are bombarded with while they mindlessly watch TV…

If a person is fed up with the big boys - and I believe many are - then get out and vote for a viable third party - maybe you don’t agree with them on everything…but if enough folks do this it WILL get the attention of the “big boys”…Staying at home accomplishes nothing.

and any third party candidate is really just whistling in the wind. The best way to change the system is probably not to totally overthrow it but work within it.

I agree - and there are various ways to do just that. Third party voting is one way to work within the system.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

But I thought the whole point was that neither of the current two big parties swept you off your feet either. The idea of voting with the sole agenda of ‘building up’ more parties sends a clear message to politicians that their platforms will not be tolerated anymore.

With the current two party system, and the belief that it cannot change allows the government to control the people. With more partys the people would control the government -which is the true meaning of a democracy.

One of the favorite mantras of the big parties is this idea of the “two party system” as if this were somehow written in the constitution or something…the other favorite mantra is “don’t waste your vote” on a third party candidate…

Two party system…don’t waste your vote…
Two party system…don’t waste your vote…
Two party system…don’t waste your vote…
Two party system…don’t waste your vote…:hypno:

Peace
James

 

[TEPO]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

There is great organization and financing in that system and any third party candidate is really just whistling in the wind.

Not necessarily…

fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml
“Third-party candidates could qualify for retroactive public funds if they receive 5% or more of the vote in the general election.”

“*Public grants of $18,248,300 went to each of the major parties for their conventions in 2012.” *(The dems and the repubs)

…in other words, if a third or fourth party received as little as 5% of votes in the general election -they automatically receive millions of dollars in US grants…!

 

[TEPO]

What the two parties do during every election, to ensure that the public remains under their control, is to create a sense of urgency… They say things that suggest that by not voting one way or the other will cause immediate dangers. They make it seem like “wasting a vote” will put the nation in never ending turmoil that will take effect immediately… It’s not true.

…much of the damage that both parties warn us of tend to come to life anyways, no matter which side you prefer. It almost seems as if they’re working together behind the curtains within the largest of theaters, collecting ticket sales from every new generation of voters.

Perhaps it’s time for us to start throwing tomatoes!

 

[TEPO]

One of the favorite mantras of the big parties is this idea of the “two party system” as if this were somehow written in the constitution or something…the other favorite mantra is “don’t waste your vote” on a third party candidate…

Two party system…don’t waste your vote…
Two party system…don’t waste your vote…
Two party system…don’t waste your vote…
Two party system…don’t waste your vote…:hypno:

Peace
James

Yeah, they don’t want to share that 18 million dollar grant with anyone…. I’m sure both of the big parties would shake on that deal!

…that’s probably why they both say the same thing: “don’t waste your vote”. IOW, don’t take our money. Don’t take our power.

 

[ProVobis]

But won’t voting for the lesser of two evils by definition mean that you are voting for at a partial good.

My next confession will sound like this: “Bless me Father for I have been partially good.”