Why do people complain about choosing the lesser of 2 evils?

Author: RationalMadman

Posts

Total: 59
Topic's author
#1
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Look, I understand the frustration at first. Life is a series of 'choosing the lesser of two evils' it's just that sometimes (rarely) we have the pleasure of the lesser evil being genuinely great if not phenomenal, rather than just better than the other.

So, you are sitting there complaining that you have to choose the lesser evil in an election and refusing to vote the lesser evil based on that... I mean, I at least respect the people who do truly vote for their third party 'throwaway' vote more than those who refuse to vote at all. I'm not here to virtue signal about voting, it's totally up to you what you do with your vote in an election but what I can say is that I personally will never not vote in a general election so long as I am a citizen of a country where votes aren't rigged and am entitled to vote.

Of course it's not just about your sole vote, if you can convince just 2 people to vote for the decisions you see as optimal for your nation and/or local seat/region then do so. Regardless, if you want to be private about your political views and not convince anyone at least vote, yourself. Trump won 2016 by targeted social media manipulation and even targeted letters to convince people not to vote for either party, who were likely to vote for Clinton. It has been exposed that Republicans are attempting something similar this time around as well, potentially:


Whether or not this is the case, please bear in mind that these dirty tactics only work because of an underlying willingness in people to refuse to vote for the lesser evil. What exactly is your endgame in refusing to vote? Do you think you will overhaul the system and neither party will win? All you have done is made it easier for the party you want least to win, to actually gain the victory. This ironically make you even more disheartened with the political system and more likely not to vote, people are voting less and less because of this strategy of manipulating you into complacancy. Do not be complacent.

Whichever party you support the least and who is likeliest to win, it is not a toxic reason to base a vote for the other major party, especially if you overall don't mind the other party winning. Choosing the lesser evil doesn't make you a morally less in-tact person, it makes you unwilling to cower out of a tough decision and that bleeds moral integrity in all ways.
#2
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
I agree with this. People don't understand the nature of coalition building either. This is one of many reasons I hate Bernie Bros who expect ideological purity from Democrats, and by purity I mean progressivism. They think all of the more moderate Democrats don't count or don't matter (meanwhile those are the ones winning the presidency for them). Admittedly I used to be of this "fuck the two party system" mindset when I was a hardcore libertarian, but I got wise. Lesser evil voting makes sense. 
#3
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@RationalMadman
I think the reason people complain about it is simply that they would prefer to choose the greater of two goods. Having a choice between one incoherent, creepy, deceitful old man and another incoherent, creepy, deceitful old man (you can argue about which is worse) or voting for a 3rd party or write-in who will never win isn't going to fill people with excitement. That being said, I agree with you that people should go out and vote, even if they don't vote for either of the major party candidates. Although tempting, throwing up your hands and refusing to vote will solve exactly nothing.
#4
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
I at least respect the people who do truly vote for their third party 'throwaway' vote more than those who refuse to vote at all.
If a third party gets 5% of the national popular vote, the Federal Election Commission will classify them as an official minor party, granting them a lump sum of cash for future campaigns. If those small parties started out with a few million instead of having to start from scratch, they could hit the campaign trail running and improve their odds of getting into the debates (unlikely but they could dream). Their goal is to win an even larger share of the vote to fortify the party's place in the American political landscape and improve their chances for future elections. Just saying. 
Topic's author
#5
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Danielle
I  definitely respect voting thirdparty more than not voting. I usually respect voting thirdparty 'who can actually win enough to make a difference in a coalition and/or to snowball that lead' more than voting thirdparty who are fairly guaranteed to lose (but this of course depends on one's convictions, loyalties and more).

Not voting is not a protest against the 2-party oligarchy, it's enabling the one you'd want to gain power less to easier do so. Not just because of your 1 measly vote but because your attitude and way you approach politics seeps into others you're close to and you indirectly peer pressure and 'role model' lead them towards not wanting to vote, if they in any way admire and/or look up to you.
#6
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
rationalmadman still has me blocked so I can't answer directly. However, context is very important. 

1st off, in this case I believe voting for the lesser of two evils is definitely important. Trump is dangerous and needs to go. However, in a normal world, this is not always the case. For example the differences between how republicans and democrats rule are almost indistinguishable in alot of cases. They aren't that different. They both love funneling money to their rich donors and craping on poor people while virtue signaling that they are protecting people. 

Both parties are thoroughly corrupt. so if you "vote blue no matter who" you are straight up endorsing that corruption. They will never change as long as they believe they can attain and hold power without changing. Just look at how the Democrats have treated the left. They actively scorn them at every opportunity because they know the left has nowhere to go. They rely on the "lesser of 2 evils" argument to force people to vote for shitty, god awful policies even though left polies are popular in lots of areas. But their donors don't like them so they continue using right wing policies. The only way to show the democrats they need to actually listen to people is to show them they can't win if they don't. If you aren't willing to threaten them with your vote, then you are fully endorsing corruption. 
Topic's author
#7
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
And what are you doing to stop this so called corruption? What is your heroic stance? Making it one vote easier for A Republican to win?
#8
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
A heroic stand would be for Bernie Bros to say f u to the Democrats and vote Trump 😜
Topic's author
#9
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
No, that is EXACTLY what I am saying is the problem.
#10
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
No, that is EXACTLY what I am saying is the problem.
And I’m just saying Bernie Bros should burn down their own “party.😜
#11
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
And what are you doing to stop this so called corruption? What is your heroic stance? Making it one vote easier for A Republican to win?
Like I said, in this election cycle I think trump is enough of a threat that Biden needs to be supported. In most other election cycles, sure. The democrats need to learn that ignoring what people want is an electoral disaster. As long as people continue support corrupt, right wing policies just because they are a bit less horrible than the alternative then all america will ever get is corrupt right wing policy. 

The evidence of that is that Biden is reportedly vetting several republicans for his cabinet. but so far, no one even remotely left leaning is being considered. They will never listen unless it costs them something to ignore people. 
Topic's author
#12
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
As long as people continue support corrupt, right wing policies just because they are a bit less horrible than the alternative then all america will ever get is corrupt right wing policy. 
You know the left-wing nations you use as examples of good social democracies? They all used to be monarchies or even Fascist states and gradually shifted to the left by several electoral shifts forcing the 'center' the parties had to appeal to, towards the left. This was not achieved by being complacent like a stroppy brat going 'bitch-ass leader you better give me what I want right now or I will let the worse party take over this nation!' like a toddler may do when they don't get the toy they ideally wanted from a selection.
#13
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,240
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
I think liberals often shoot ourselves in the foot with our purity tests and woke-offs and the hyper-PC standards we try to hold our candidates to.

Biden was really not my first choice, but he's a fuck of a lot better than Trump, and that's enough.
#14
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Castin
I think liberals often shoot ourselves in the foot with our purity tests and woke-offs and the hyper-PC standards we try to hold our candidates to.
Did you just criticize political correctness? Cancelled.
#15
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,240
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@SirAnonymous
Lulz. #MyLifeAsACancelledLiberal

I stand by it though. We need to stop being bitches and start being badasses. I'm sick of losin'.
#16
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Castin
Life as a cancelled liberal is easy. All you have to do is go on Dave Rubin's show, or Steven Crowder's. Then you start a YouTube channel where you post videos complaining about cancel culture, and conservatives will flock to you and tell you how much more tolerant they are than liberals. You get to complain about how persecuted you are and make money doing it. It's a great gig.

Or, you could not, because you don't want to sell your soul to the open sewer that is YouTube politics.
Topic's author
#17
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Castin
Thanks for the support, it is important to notice.
#18
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,240
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@SirAnonymous
Life as a cancelled liberal is easy. All you have to do is go on Dave Rubin's show, or Steven Crowder's. Then you start a YouTube channel where you post videos complaining about cancel culture, and conservatives will flock to you and tell you how much more tolerant they are than liberals. You get to complain about how persecuted you are and make money doing it. It's a great gig.

Or, you could not, because you don't want to sell your soul to the open sewer that is YouTube politics.
Yeah, no thanks. Maybe I'll just be one of those cancelled liberals who signs the Harper's letter.
#19
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Castin
As I thought. You do have a soul.
#20
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
You know the left-wing nations you use as examples of good social democracies? They all used to be monarchies or even Fascist states and gradually shifted to the left by several electoral shifts forcing the 'center' the parties had to appeal to, towards the left. This was not achieved by being complacent like a stroppy brat going 'bitch-ass leader you better give me what I want right now or I will let the worse party take over this nation!' like a toddler may do when they don't get the toy they ideally wanted from a selection.
most of those countries aren't locked into a 2 party system. So when the "centrist" parties do shitty stuff, they can show their anger by voting for a further left wing party. America is locked into a 2 party system. The democrats have internalized the message that the left can be completely ignored because they have no choice. All they have to do is be a bit less shitty than the republicans and virtue signal. Then they only have to win over the right wing people they can syphon off from the republicans. Since the left always caves and votes for them anyway, this is a successful strategy. But it is one that guarantees permanent corrupt, right wing rule. Until the democrats learn that ignoring the left will bring electoral defeat, they will keep doing it forever. 

And you are right, it wasn't achieved by being complacent. It was achieved by forcing politicians to do what you want, or forcing them to lose their job. Which is exactly what the left needs to do. 
Topic's author
#21
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Yes they are, except that coalitions with thirdparties are more viable especially as most gave proportional representation (though UK and Australia have seat system I believe).

I don't see how or why you disagree to me.

#22
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
I don't see how or why you disagree to me.
in this specific election cycle, I don't. Trump is dangerous and needs to go. 

in most other election cycles, i do. The democratic party, since clinton primarily but even going back earlier, has shifted further to the right on economic and social issues. I mean Joe Biden pushed Ronald Reagan to be tougher in punishing drug addicts (while his son was one but wasn't subject to the punishment Joe wanted to give to others). Most of the people who make the leadership of the democratic party, don't actually represent the will of the people who vote for them. But they have learned the lesson that if they rule like moderate republicans, the left has no choice but to vote for them and they can compete for right wing votes. So they win, even though they consistently screw over a large percentage of americans.

The only way to stop them from doing that is to teach them that ruling like a republican means electoral loss. 

Topic's author
#23
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
The only way to stop them from doing that is to teach them that ruling like a republican means electoral loss. 
But people who think like you are teaching them the opposite, moving them more to the right.
#24
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
But people who think like you are teaching them the opposite, moving them more to the right.
how so? they completely ignore the left either way because they see it has absolutely no cost to them. That is why they move right. It is the complacency of the left that allows them to do this. If the left simply refused to support them, they would lose and need to actually respond to what the people want. 

Topic's author
#25
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
how so? they completely ignore the left either way because they see it has absolutely no cost to them. That is why they move right. It is the complacency of the left that allows them to do this. If the left simply refused to support them, they would lose and need to actually respond to what the people want. 
Here is how:

Voters reward the right-wing party as well as the left-wing Centrists rewarding Democrats when they move towards the right.

Voters like yourself punish them for whatever reason you hold inside your head and so what they see is that Republicans get avid, loyal voters and that the only way to poach from the active voter pool is to move further to the Right so as to appeal to those voting Republican to vote them instead.

Meanwhile, you sit there going 'oh yes look at me I've done a great thing now they'll move more to the left!" but in fact your type has punished them in a way that means they only see active voters moving towards the right-wing, rather than seeing inactive non-voters moving towards the left-wing.
#26
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
Meanwhile, you sit there going 'oh yes look at me I've done a great thing now they'll move more to the left!" but in fact your type has punished them in a way that means they only see active voters moving towards the right-wing, rather than seeing inactive non-voters moving towards the left-wing.
fair point. but if they are so stupid that they insist on learning the opposite lesson, then the left needs to go further to make it unmistakable. For example, start a 3rd party and tank them even harder. And make it crystal clear the reason they are doing it is that the democratic party is too far right. It's pretty hard to miss the message when a solid percentage of your voters are voting for someone further left and that costs you your job. 

Then the message is crystal clear. Appeal to the left or lose you damn job. 

Topic's author
#27
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
fair point. but if they are so stupid that they insist on learning the opposite lesson, then the left needs to go further to make it unmistakable. For example, start a 3rd party and tank them even harder. 
You can try, you will of course fail and prove to them that it's better to move further and further Right until your group as a whole learn to stop being whiny brats and show gratitude to the only Party that can truly defeat the Republicans or else you can perish like Labour did to the Convervatives in the UK this election.

If you actually look at the votes, rather than seats, it was a very 50/50 split between left-wing parties and right-wing (SNP was willing to coalitoin with Labour) but due to other factors, such as Liberal Democrats and Green Party having supporters leeching from Labour, as well as people who didn't 'like Corbyn' for whatever reason, were either voting Conservative or their third party and throwing away realistic 50/50 likelihood seats. The result was a landslide record-breaking victory for Conservatives, unseen since Thatcher's election.

The issue isn't people who votes thirdparty itself, especially not if their area didn't have any chance at a non-Conservative seat. The issue is people who refused to vote, voted Conservative or intentionally threw 50/50 seat areas solely out of spite and whining at Corbyn for not being the perfect candidate.

The right-wing in UK is actually equal to what the Democrats are in left-ism, in fact they are slightly less Right Wing in practise (but in ethos they are basically equal). This is the first election since Thatcher that is encouraging Labour to shift towards the right and that is exactly what is happening now.
Topic's author
#28
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
You do not encourage a party to move to the Left by teaching them that those that are willing and happy to vote support more right-wing policies.
#29
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Labor died in the UK, it was pretty funny imo
#30
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
You can try, you will of course fail and prove to them that it's better to move further and further Right until your group as a whole learn to stop being whiny brats and show gratitude to the only Party that can truly defeat the Republicans or else you can perish like Labour did to the Convervatives in the UK this election.
wow, that is exactly the mentality of the democratic party. That the left needs to shut up and vote the way they are told. That it doesn't matter if the democrats will do almost nothing for the left, will actively spit on the left. They should just be grateful for their right wing rule. That is complete bullshit. 

The issue isn't people who votes thirdparty itself, especially not if their area didn't have any chance at a non-Conservative seat. The issue is people who refused to vote, voted Conservative or intentionally threw 50/50 seat areas solely out of spite and whining at Corbyn for not being the perfect candidate.
oh look, blaming the voters. You are just straight up taking your arguments from the DNC. Obama recently did the same thing. He whined that it was people not voting for him in the midterms that kept him from doing anything. So it's all the voters fault that he was a shitty president. It had nothing to do with the fact that he had 2 years of control of congress and the senate and did fuck all with it. No, it must be the voters that are wrong. It couldn't possibly be that people refused to vote for him because he refused to do the things he promised. 

You do not encourage a party to move to the Left by teaching them that those that are willing and happy to vote support more right-wing policies.
True. which is why all of the left should start voting 3rd party. Because you also do not encourage a party to move left by blindly supporting them when they keep shifting right.