• gastationsushi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s voting for less evil. And staying home is an extra vote for more evil.

    But I promise, get the frustration. We live in a fucked up system that filters out good candidates.

    • CheeseChief@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nope, vote based on your values. If everyone did that, you wouldn’t have to settle for evil.

      • modcolocko@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not how American voting works, if everyone voted for who they think is absolute best, the group with the most unity wins, which is exactly why political parties exist.

        • CheeseChief@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, Unity. That is what I’m referring to. It just seems voters are only worried about being on the “winning” side and that is their Unity - winning and not what is best for them.

            • CheeseChief@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sorry, I’m just saying that if people all voted for a 3rd party candidate that wanted govt out of their pockets and personal life things would be so much better than just voting to win or voting for the lesser of two evils. Does that make sense? Not sure if I’m articulating my thought well enough.

              • modcolocko@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The problem is everyone voting for a third party candidate at the national level is pratically impossible, including the fact that you have to convince people that the candidate is popular enough to even be worth voting for.

                It’s and endless and unfortunately unavoidable cycle.

                You vote to win in almost all cases. That’s how US elections work.

                • CheeseChief@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sounds like sad and defeated outlook on voting. I think all that we can do is try and inform voters on third party options and hopefully things will change.

                  • modcolocko@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Unfortunately, this is how Trump wins. However, one could argue letting the dnc lose could also result in them bringing on more candidates that appeal to younger and much more progressive voters.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A plan that depends on everyone spontaneously deciding to do what you think is best is no plan at all.

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Most people aren’t libertarians.

            And there’s little to no historical precedent for people spontaneously uniting around a third party candidate. There is, OTOH, precedent for the spoiler effect causing an unpopular candidate to win.

        • CheeseChief@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I just think if people would look at what they value, find a matching candidate, vote for said candidate; things would be less of a shits show.

          • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly; you don’t understand basic game theory. The options you lay out are not in fact part of the equation. If we’re playing a game in which you have only two choices, opting for a third make-believe alternative is going to result in a losing outcome every time.

            • CheeseChief@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think that the majority of people have a fair moral compass or at least feel that they want less Government meddling in their life?

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The fact that Republicans are not winning many elections lately suggests otherwise. Most people want things like social security and medicare. Many of us want a stronger IRS to go after tax fraud. Many more of us want universal healthcare. All of that is government “meddling.”

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Your opinions are noted. However, that doesn’t mean most people share your views like you seem to think. Again, if they did, a lot more Republicans would be elected.