If you keep picking lesser evil, then they keep getting more and more evil. This isn’t going to change by any mechanism other than voting differently - we don’t actually use this time between elections to organize more, especially not while moderates are out to brunch. If a party’s primary system is undemocratic, then your only choice is to vote for another party - even if that party is currently losing very badly.
The American left is losing so hard that we consider blatantly pro-corporate controlled opposition to be on our side at all. They’re not - they support FPTP because they’d rather see Greater Evil win than see Actually Good win. This has been obvious since 2000. So obvious that we say only two parties are viable, but for some mysterious reason the Democrats don’t support fixing it. Why should they?
Every national election, we’re encouraged to hold our noses, vote for the immediate short term goal, to “buy time”. We’ve squandered that time consistently and here we are now, after 40 years of iterating the ratchet effect. What should be done at that point, and every election thereafter, is to vote for someone who opposes FPTP. A vote for FPTP is a vote for Greater Evil winning in the long term, and that’s exactly what has happened.
If you keep picking lesser evil, then they keep getting more and more evil.
When you go into that ballot booth there are exactly two options in front of you. Well, technically, three. They are:
Pick the greater evil.
Pick the lesser evil.
Throw your vote away and let the outcome fall where it may.
So, you’re crossing out “pick the lesser evil.” I assume you’re also not advocating for picking the greater evil. So you’re saying just abstain?
If a party’s primary system is undemocratic, then your only choice is to vote for another party - even if that party is currently losing very badly.
Ah, you’re suggesting voting for a third party. Under first-past-the-post electoral systems that’s part of the “throw your vote away” option.
Every national election, we’re encouraged to hold our noses, vote for the immediate short term goal, to “buy time”.
Yes, because by the time you get to the election itself those are the only two options left. It’s been winnowed down to that by the electoral process and it’s too late to have any other options by that point.
Lesser evil, or greater evil? That’s it.
What should be done at that point, and every election thereafter, is to vote for someone who opposes FPTP.
In primaries, sure. For local candidates and so forth. It’d be awesome to get rid of first-past-the-post. I’ve pushed for it in my own country, where there’s at least a little chance it might happen.
But at the end of the campaign when it’s voting day and you’re standing there in that voting booth, and there’s the D vs R choice sitting there in front of you, there’s no “get rid of FPTP” option as an alternative. Just D and R.
Yeah, you don’t like to hear that. Tough, it’s reality. Believing in a preferred reality and insisting that it must be real simply because you want it to be real isn’t really our thing here, is it?
You’re usually a pretty smart person so I’m not going back and forth reiterating that lengthy explanation. Please consider my words in earnest before the next time you vote for someone who wants you to have this dilemma.
If you keep picking lesser evil, then they keep getting more and more evil. This isn’t going to change by any mechanism other than voting differently - we don’t actually use this time between elections to organize more, especially not while moderates are out to brunch. If a party’s primary system is undemocratic, then your only choice is to vote for another party - even if that party is currently losing very badly.
The American left is losing so hard that we consider blatantly pro-corporate controlled opposition to be on our side at all. They’re not - they support FPTP because they’d rather see Greater Evil win than see Actually Good win. This has been obvious since 2000. So obvious that we say only two parties are viable, but for some mysterious reason the Democrats don’t support fixing it. Why should they?
Every national election, we’re encouraged to hold our noses, vote for the immediate short term goal, to “buy time”. We’ve squandered that time consistently and here we are now, after 40 years of iterating the ratchet effect. What should be done at that point, and every election thereafter, is to vote for someone who opposes FPTP. A vote for FPTP is a vote for Greater Evil winning in the long term, and that’s exactly what has happened.
When you go into that ballot booth there are exactly two options in front of you. Well, technically, three. They are:
So, you’re crossing out “pick the lesser evil.” I assume you’re also not advocating for picking the greater evil. So you’re saying just abstain?
Ah, you’re suggesting voting for a third party. Under first-past-the-post electoral systems that’s part of the “throw your vote away” option.
Yes, because by the time you get to the election itself those are the only two options left. It’s been winnowed down to that by the electoral process and it’s too late to have any other options by that point.
Lesser evil, or greater evil? That’s it.
In primaries, sure. For local candidates and so forth. It’d be awesome to get rid of first-past-the-post. I’ve pushed for it in my own country, where there’s at least a little chance it might happen.
But at the end of the campaign when it’s voting day and you’re standing there in that voting booth, and there’s the D vs R choice sitting there in front of you, there’s no “get rid of FPTP” option as an alternative. Just D and R.
Yeah, you don’t like to hear that. Tough, it’s reality. Believing in a preferred reality and insisting that it must be real simply because you want it to be real isn’t really our thing here, is it?
You’re usually a pretty smart person so I’m not going back and forth reiterating that lengthy explanation. Please consider my words in earnest before the next time you vote for someone who wants you to have this dilemma.