nerdygirl wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
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.
I understand the sentiment, but that would create a logistical nightmare. We already have problems with voter turnout and counting votes! If no one won 51%, we'd have to have ANOTHER race, ANOTHER voting day, etc. What would we do with the person who would currently be in office? It sounds like a way to create a possible dictatorship.
This is just one of those problems with a democratic republic that we must live with.
You see problems? I see opportunities.
I can't stand the get out the vote initiatives. If you need someone begging, pleading and prodding you to vote, you should not be voting. Too many people are voting as it is.
If there was another election, so what? Then, only people who really care enough to show up will decide how things are run. That's how it should be.
29 Nov 2015, 5:13 pm
