Von Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> 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.
>
> There it is, the circular logic. *sigh*
>
There's no circle there. By the time the presidential election comes
up, 'voting reform' is a non-issue, and the viable candidates have
been determined. Campaigning for sure losers and educating people
about their platforms (hopefully in a less obnoxious manner than you
do) is helpful, but actually voting for sure losers is not.
> I have never said that. Sure, it's no secret that I support Ron Paul,
> but I don't think everyone should vote for him simply because I like
> him. Levi, you and I have had this discussion before. I try to get you
> to tell me what it is you don't like about Ron Paul and the ONLY thing
> that ever comes out of your mouth is "he doesn't have a chance." Well
> I'm sorry but you're just part of the problem there, buddy. If you
> really don't like him then just come out and say so, then I'll stop
> bugging you about throwing away a vote.
Blah, blah, blah. I don't particularly like Ron Paul's platform. I
don't think he'd make a particularly good President, but I do hope he
keeps up his role in Congress, because I think that's a better place
for him. And he doesn't have a chance of becoming President, and he
wouldn't even if everyone who really wanted him to be President voted
for him. So, no, recognizing that fact is not part of any 'problem'
any more than people recognizing that all the other minor players have
no chance is a problem. Your distorted view of his chance of success
makes no difference to anything aside from the amount of noise you
make here.
> Sure it can be a calculation game. If the risk factor of B getting into
> office outweighs the benefit of C getting into office (weighted with
> probabilities or something) then vote for A PROVIDED you agree with A
> although perhaps not as strongly as C. Follow? Voting the lesser of two
> evils is what I rail against. If you're calling them both evils then
> don't compromise yourself! And remember kids, McInsane and Obama are
> both evils.
Voting for the viable candidate that you agree with most is what makes
the most sense, whether you agree with them very much or not. Our two
major parties are not terribly different in the grand scheme of
political thought, and that's because mainstream America has a pretty
narrow political spectrum. Wishing it wasn't so doesn't change the
fact, nor will yelling at people to vote for unelectable candidates.
We will probably never have a President outside of that narrow
spectrum, but changing voting rules could open up the possibility of
letting more 'extreme' politicians into Congress. Whether that'd be a
good thing or not is up for debate, but it doesn't have a whole lot to
do with the Presidential election.
> Hence why I try to convince people the merits of conscious voting. If
> you really believe choosing the lesser of two evils is the best way to
> vote, then have at it. I will still disagree with you. That's the beauty
> of America, we each can say and vote as we please. At least for a little
> while longer... :/
Personally, I like to vote while unconscious. :P
--Levi
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
