On Thursday 19 June 2008, Shane Hathaway wrote: > Voting for a non-viable candidate is a vote for voting reform. It would > be wonderful to have an election where the majority of voters choose a > write-in candidate. Even if none of the write-in candidates win, the > voters would be sending the message that our current ballots are not > expressive enough.
And, perhaps beating my own dead horse, but rounding back to the idea of influencing the short-term result at the expense of long term progress towards change, I can put it in simple CS terms: if you keep providing the same inputs, why would you ever expect a different outcome? The only way to get to a different destination is to change your direction, and the best time to do so is now, not 'later'--otherwise you grow old and discover that 'later' never came... Voting with the mainstream strengthens the mainstream. If you don't like the mainstream--don't vote for them--either one of them. That is the only way in the current system to show that we really want the direction to change, and the only real way to start doing it (short of some sort of revolution by force). /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
