Von Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is real, if you don't vote the two party system then someone
> in the two party system still wins, so might as well have it be the one
> you despise less, right? WRONG! The only reason this is a problem is
> because everyone thinks this way. If everyone would jump off and think
> for themselve (not second guessing everyone else) then we wouldn't HAVE
> this problem. And guess what, it starts with YOU and ME. You CANNOT wait
> till everybody else does the right thing, you just have to Do It.
You assume that YOU and ME doing the 'right thing' will somehow
influence everyone else to do the same. The world just doesn't work
that way; some of us actually think about how the current voting
system actually works and what a vote for a candidate means in that
context. What you would *like* a vote to mean is largely irrelevant.
Besides, what if there's no one I support 100%? What am I supposed to
do with my vote then, eh? Surely you wouldn't advocate voting for the
one candidate that I merely dislike less than all the others. Of
course not; you advocate voting for Ron Paul, and if I don't agree
with him, then I need to change my mind until I do, and then vote for
him. I see how this works.
Last time I checked, there wasn't a manual for proper voting that says
it's wrong to vote strategically if I feel that's the best use of my
vote. You and your 'right thing' can go take a hike. Meanwhile,
you'd have a better chance of success pushing for a change in the
voting system than trying to convince people to vote in our current
system in the manner you suggest.
--Levi
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
