Why do people refuse to vote for "the lesser of two evils"?

Post Reply New Topic

The lesser of two evils, or the evil of two lessers...

I respect Bernie way more than most politicians, because he is honest about his beliefs. I think he's completely wrong, but I respect him. I would love to see it come down to Bernie and Rand, just because then there could be a true debate about ideology.

I've always voted for the candidate I think is best. Whether or not they can win is not even part of the consideration. In the past, that has been the libertarian candidate. You may think it's illogical to vote for someone who can't win. However, I see it as a matter of conscience. If I actually voted for one of those two evils, I would feel morally responsible for tacitly endorsing their flawed policies. Also, to borrow a line from Back to the Future, I am thinking 4-dimensionally. Sometimes it's more about the long term war than the short term battle. Instead of the lesser evil, I would rather see worst candidate win. Then, once they truly wreck the country, people might finally realize they need the principles I believe in.

For 2016, Cruz is my guy. Even if he doesn't make the nomination, I'll do a write-in vote for him.

I don't like people who seek to shut down the government to advance their own political agenda.

It's not quite an attempted coup-d'état--but it makes the potential for one shine before my eyes.

I'd rather not have a radical tea-partier in the White House.

People are elected to congress to represent their district or state.

How can a member of congress be criticized for acting in according with his constituents wishes? He doesn't represent the U.S., he represents Texans.

I would rather have a person of principle, who does exactly what he says and promises, than someone who compromises his integrity in the smoky backrooms.

Would you rather have a radical Saul Alinsky-ite in office? No thank you. Divide and conquer, that's their motto.

Because they are idealists and actually think someone worth a s**t could be elected.
I have no such illusions.

Yes, Texas is represented by the Texas contigent.

But their actions have a great effect NATIONALLY.

Our system, like all republics, is based on compromise. When people stop compromising the system breaks down and very bad things begin to happen.
Look at Rome in the 1st century bce, or the US in the mid-19th century.

If we as a democracy took voting seriously, there would be Federal laws that prevented states or anyone else from dissuading people from voting. It's...interesting, to see which states go out of their way to make voting more difficult & the justifications used, and which go to extremes to make it easy (ie auto-registration with voluntary DMV transactions, etc.).

If we as a nation took voting seriously, there would be legal repercussions for blatant, provable *lies* used in campaigns (see Houston's anti-HERO drive, Prop 8, & similar drives). For that matter if we as a nation took voting seriously, pastors and priests would not be allowed to make threats against peoples' "eternal souls" if they vote for the wrong candidate (see 2008, 2012 presidential races).

If we as a nation took voting seriously, campaign donations and funding would be irrelevant to the process. Candidates would state their promises and opinions on various positions and issues, and compete on an even playing field based on whose views on issues resonated with the most voters using a structured, limited, *provided* set of resources equally available to all, and in a provided, standardized forum (ie a .gov website or such).

If we as a nation took our democracy seriously, the average citizen would be very concerned about the process itself at this point.

Last edited by Edenthiel on 25 Nov 2015, 3:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Saw it on cnn back when they were used in Syria when interviewing gov officials. The military watched them drive across. Why would the liberal news who was so biased against bush not report on something that favored bush hmm. But during Syria reporting it was as a failure of bush so against him and the. Fit their bias.

Yeah why would a country being invaded for having wmds try to hid all evidence. Suppose you don't believe the nazis tried to burn all records as the war came to an end too.

Also we provided the weapons to Iraq back in the Iraq Iran war. Enemy of our enemy and such Cold War s**t. Worlds not nice and clean as you'd like. Find it funny you say bush our former president lied but no way the gov or Obama would lie.

The demos say they want to shut down the gov til they get gun control passed. So don't support demo trades. You seem blind to the demo rates political agenda that they'll lie and make up s**t and do anything to get.

I'd rather have a radical tea party person then a ban all guns radical gun control dem any day.

With the first I'll still Abe my rights.

If a Democrat did the same thing as the Tea Party advocated, I'd be just as pissed.

I'm not Liberal in all things.

CNN serves the military industrial complex, everything they report on is sensationalized and they never not advocate for war.

dems have NO plan to shut down the government over gun control. that's another unproven conspiracy theory. along with this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conje ... on_of_Iraq

with a radical tea partier in the white house, i wouldn't bet on folks keeping their disability and other social security payments for long. which is worse? a couple gun restrictions (no one is coming for your hunting guns) or millions of people in abject poverty?

I like him as well. People like to call him a "whacko bird" and everything, but if you listen to him speak, most of what he says makes sense...and he actually does (or at least tries to do) what he says he will do. He follows the constitution (like elected officials should do), and when he protests something, it is usually because other people aren't following it, or they are doing things they shouldn't be doing (like spending money we don't have), or trying to pass BS bills.

Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is to vote for evil nonetheless.

I can appreciate the pragmatic view, but in reality, rather than accept evil in any form, people should demand real options.

There is a time for pragmatism and a time to be idealistic. The "powers that be" always pick candidates THEY can work with, but neither choice is optimal for the people in general. We're made to feel that one or the other is "good enough" when there is much better to choose from in the first place.

I believe the US needs a "none of the above" option on every ballot, and if a candidate can't carry 51% of the vote, then there is no winner. People should be able to express at the ballot box their discontent for the options being offered. Not voting simply lets whomever gets the most votes win the race when indeed the majority of voters might want NEITHER option to win.

When I vote, I often write in "None of the Above". Or I write "Jesus of Nazareth".

When I vote, I vote for whomever is not spouting lies and violent, hate-filled rhetoric about families like mine. The incident in Colorado at this point appears to have been a result in some part of similar rhetoric-without-responsibility; I don't want to reward that sort of thing. I also don't want someone in office who has already promised to turn a whole class of people into second class citizens for religious reasons.