Would you vote for a fraud

[marharth]

Voting may not make much difference, but you should also vote for the lesser evil.

 

As for the main question, political parties are a plague on democracy. People will vote blindly for the party that normally matches their values, and ignore the individual.

[ub3rman123]

Politics has indeed descended to Red vs. Blue today. When I see two candidates, I ignore what party they're from and look at what they say they believe and do. Then I make my decisions on who to vote for.

 

As for if it would give him a Congress that supported him, I'd be for it. I'm sick of seeing, for the last three presidents, a Congress who sits there and blocks everything the president tries to do just because he's the other color.

[LadyMilla]

Voting may not make much difference, but you should also vote for the lesser evil.

 

As for the main question, political parties are a plague on democracy. People will vote blindly for the party that normally matches their values, and ignore the individual.

 

Why should I vote if none of the parties represent my views about how the country should be governed? Voting for the lesser evil just gives them false legitimacy. You cannot attach a qualifying statement to your vote: "My vote for you may not be construed as support for your political views and methods, it is strictly a vote against the other party."

 

 

 

[marharth]

Voting may not make much difference, but you should also vote for the lesser evil.

 

As for the main question, political parties are a plague on democracy. People will vote blindly for the party that normally matches their values, and ignore the individual.

 

Why should I vote if none of the parties represent my views about how the country should be governed? Voting for the lesser evil just gives them false legitimacy. You cannot attach a qualifying statement to your vote: "My vote for you may not be construed as support for your political views and methods, it is strictly a vote against the other party."

Your single vote will not make any politician change their mind. Not voting as a protest does nothing.

 

Voting for the lesser evil will delay the country from being completely destroyed.

[LadyMilla]

Your single vote will not make any politician change their mind. Not voting as a protest does nothing.

 

Voting for the lesser evil will delay the country from being completely destroyed.

 

My single vote? No. A lot of non-voters? Yes. It sends a signal that a growing percentage of the population find the current political elite (regardless of their affiliation) repulsive. It also indicates that there is an opening for a new political force to enter and convince the voters that they are a viable alternative.

 

As to "Voting for the lesser evil will delay the country from being completely destroyed" that's pure rhetoric. Voting alone has not prevented any country from being destroyed.

[marharth]

Your single vote will not make any politician change their mind. Not voting as a protest does nothing.

 

Voting for the lesser evil will delay the country from being completely destroyed.

 

My single vote? No. A lot of non-voters? Yes. It sends a signal that a growing percentage of the population find the current political elite (regardless of their affiliation) repulsive. It also indicates that there is an opening for a new political force to enter and convince the voters that they are a viable alternative.

 

As to "Voting for the lesser evil will delay the country from being completely destroyed" that's pure rhetoric. Voting alone has not prevented any country from being destroyed.

 

That, or the political elite think "Good for us, now we don't have to worry about people who know how politics work voting!"

 

 

It won't prevent a thing, it will delay it.

[Flintlockecole]

Your single vote will not make any politician change their mind. Not voting as a protest does nothing.

 

Voting for the lesser evil will delay the country from being completely destroyed.

 

My single vote? No. A lot of non-voters? Yes. It sends a signal that a growing percentage of the population find the current political elite (regardless of their affiliation) repulsive. It also indicates that there is an opening for a new political force to enter and convince the voters that they are a viable alternative.

 

As to "Voting for the lesser evil will delay the country from being completely destroyed" that's pure rhetoric. Voting alone has not prevented any country from being destroyed.

 

That, or the political elite think "Good for us, now we don't have to worry about people who know how politics work voting!"

 

 

It won't prevent a thing, it will delay it.

"Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."

[marharth]

Your single vote will not make any politician change their mind. Not voting as a protest does nothing.

 

Voting for the lesser evil will delay the country from being completely destroyed.

 

My single vote? No. A lot of non-voters? Yes. It sends a signal that a growing percentage of the population find the current political elite (regardless of their affiliation) repulsive. It also indicates that there is an opening for a new political force to enter and convince the voters that they are a viable alternative.

 

As to "Voting for the lesser evil will delay the country from being completely destroyed" that's pure rhetoric. Voting alone has not prevented any country from being destroyed.

 

That, or the political elite think "Good for us, now we don't have to worry about people who know how politics work voting!"

 

 

It won't prevent a thing, it will delay it.

"Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."

And?

[RZ1029]

Politics has indeed descended to Red vs. Blue today. Not true. Red vs. Blue is twice as entertaining as CSPAN will ever be, except for the ONE day they showed Bush getting a shoe thrown at his head. When I see two candidates, I ignore what party they're from and look at what they say they believe and do. Then I make my decisions on who to vote for.

Same. I could care less if he is a Democratic uber-Liberal of death or whatever, if I agree with what (s)he is saying (and, hopefully, doing) they have my vote.

 

As for if it would give him a Congress that supported him, I'd be for it. I'm sick of seeing, for the last three presidents, a Congress who sits there and blocks everything the president tries to do just because he's the other color.

Eh... nevermind. I'm not going to touch this.

 

 

My single vote? No. A lot of non-voters? Yes. It sends a signal that a growing percentage of the population find the current political elite (regardless of their affiliation) repulsive. It also indicates that there is an opening for a new political force to enter and convince the voters that they are a viable alternative.

So you would rather let the supposed 'others' who don't 'understand' like you do, chose how your country is run? I assure you, politicians don't care if you don't vote, you're just one less person they have to worry about winning over to get in. So you're just doing them a favor.

 

As to "Voting for the lesser evil will delay the country from being completely destroyed" that's pure rhetoric. Voting alone has not prevented any country from being destroyed.

Who says it's always the lesser evil? I can usually find a candidate or two in most any race that I can support in majority, if not entirety. The obvious fact is, you will likely never find a politician who agrees with everything single view you have, much the way it would be hard for anyone to find one other person who's in complete agreement. And you're right, voting alone will not prevent a country from being destroyed, but at least someone's trying to do some good, even in the smallest way.

[LadyMilla]

"Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."

 

... and providing them with legitimacy and assurance that the voters think they are doing the right thing. I am not willing to do that.