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.
As I said, I’ve pushed for getting rid of first-past-the-post in my own country. We’re fortunate to have not entirely slid into two-party politics here yet, though of course there’s an endless “gravity” pulling things that way due to FPTP. I’m well aware of how this works, the game theory behind it is quite clear and obvious.
But wishing the dilemma would go away doesn’t mean you’re not faced with it anyway when you step into that ballot box. In the 2024 election Donald Trump got about the same number of votes he did the previous time he ran, but Harris got significantly fewer votes than Biden did. The election went to Trump because people decided to pick option three - they either abstained or threw their votes away. That’s the solid, real, actual, practical outcome that you get from that kind of view towards voting in an election like that. And so that’s why I’m so strident in recommending that you hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil. Kang and Kodos were right, you only have those two options at that point.
I’m involved in local politics where I live. I volunteer, I pamphlet, I survey. There’s stuff to do when there isn’t an election going on and that’s the stuff that contributes toward determining which two options are present. But it’s a lot more work than just going into a room once every two or four years to punch a card or however you do it, so most people don’t. That’s why you never seem to see any change in those two options. If you don’t like those options then that’s what you have to do.
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.
As I said, I’ve pushed for getting rid of first-past-the-post in my own country. We’re fortunate to have not entirely slid into two-party politics here yet, though of course there’s an endless “gravity” pulling things that way due to FPTP. I’m well aware of how this works, the game theory behind it is quite clear and obvious.
But wishing the dilemma would go away doesn’t mean you’re not faced with it anyway when you step into that ballot box. In the 2024 election Donald Trump got about the same number of votes he did the previous time he ran, but Harris got significantly fewer votes than Biden did. The election went to Trump because people decided to pick option three - they either abstained or threw their votes away. That’s the solid, real, actual, practical outcome that you get from that kind of view towards voting in an election like that. And so that’s why I’m so strident in recommending that you hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil. Kang and Kodos were right, you only have those two options at that point.
I’m involved in local politics where I live. I volunteer, I pamphlet, I survey. There’s stuff to do when there isn’t an election going on and that’s the stuff that contributes toward determining which two options are present. But it’s a lot more work than just going into a room once every two or four years to punch a card or however you do it, so most people don’t. That’s why you never seem to see any change in those two options. If you don’t like those options then that’s what you have to do.