Posted on 05/24/2016 6:44:16 PM PDT by Sean_Anthony
However much you may not like the choices, silencing your own voice is by far the worst thing you can do.
As disgruntled Republican voters and disappointed Democrat voters languish over a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, some of them are saying it’s voting for the lesser of two evils, or, they’re not voting at all.
And that’s a problem. For those determined to avoid evils, they’re missing something huge.
This kind of blackmail is older than the hills, and an insult to the intelligence. Lesser-of-evils voting is how we got into this mess.
Give people something to vote FOR and blackmail becomes unnecessary.
Supposedly the last time 65% of eligible US voters voted in national elections was back in 1908, less for state and local. It hasn’t broken that since, a lot of them being below 55%. At least by any thing that I have seen.
Nobody really seems to care that millions and millions in campaign money is spent to convince the swayable to vote one way or the other, and we still haven’t broken 65% eligible voter turnout in 108 years. That is pretty amazing to me.
Freegards
Lots of people here stayed home in the last two Presidential elections.
Or, so they claimed.
If you don’t take the time to learn about the issues and the candidates, you shouldn’t vote. Uninformed voting can inflict much evil on everyone if the wrong person gets elected because of it.
Supposedly the dumbest 10% of voters, the ones that vote one way and then another and can’t usually give a reason that follows any sort of logical explanation, are the ones that decide elections. Supposedly all campaign money is meant to sway the swing voters, at least after the primary process.
That’s something else I find amazing. That the dumbest 10% of eligible voters who manage to vote decide elections, whether or not a pub or dem wins. It could be a good result, or a bad one, but in any case the idiots decide.
Freegards
Disturbing ...
Equally as disturbing: half the population is below average. Idiots: They walk among us. And they vote.
The voters you mentioned in you post should stay home and not vote.
Our country would be a better place.
“Equally as disturbing: half the population is below average. Idiots: They walk among us. And they vote.”
It seems that from observable every day life that yes, maybe around half the folks seem to be flakes and dim bulbs.
But the disturbing things are that maybe the only reason we aren’t farther along in social and cultural decline is because of the folks that don’t bother to vote who are eligible. I suspect that if more bothered to vote it would only raise the ‘swing vote’ as a %. And what that would do is make it even more of a crap shoot, becoming much more random based on whatever ever either candidate could do to sway the dumbest.
So maybe if we had higher turn out, like say 85% for the last 100 years, we would either be living in conservative utopia or liberal dystopia. But in either case it wasn’t because the smartest folks had acted on their considered opinions, but because the absolute dumbest could be swayed one way or another. Like flipping a coin 5 times and getting heads each time. Pretty grim stuff.
Maybe you can’t get around this in human society when everyone’s vote is the same.
Freegards
They don’t realize they are that dumb. And since they supposedly decide elections, no one running for office is ever going to call them on their dumbness and say they don’t want the mouth breather vote, which means swing voter.
Freegards
Absolutely could not stand Mitt Romney. His personality and everything about him cringed me but felt obligated to vote for him against Obama. I voted absentee and it was less painful. Did I do the right thing? I’m not so sure.
Given our electoral system one has several options to vote strategically. If you vote in a state where the odds strongly favor one party or the other, you can register your protest by voting for a third party or write in your own choice. In states likely to be toss ups your vote truly counts and one must live with one’s self if the most evil candidate is elected,
In the 2008 general elections, if more of our side had voted for the "lesser of two evils", we might be talking about President Palin by now. Instead we've had two terms of Obama, and might get Clinton. That's where not voting for the lesser of two evils got us.
When your voting for a "lesser evil" to be in power over you eventually confirms what you already knew would be the result, you then have however many years worth of "unexpected" consequences to regret that are now your new problems that your vote made happen.
We've been doing this for decades now and a vote for "lesser evil" has turned out well.
All it does is just encourage and attract more "lesser evil" and pretty soon you have real, honest to God evil in power over you and yours.
How unexpected...but other than that, how do you like your fundamental transformation so far?
Growing up in my household, my father was pretty clear ...
If you don’t have time to vote, I don’t have time to listen to your shit.
None of the Above is a valid vote. People need to stop blaming voters for the fact that neither party has put forth a valid candidate in the 21st century.
I've never believed the implication in "the lesser of two evils is still EVIL!!!!" that the speaker's choice is somehow excepted from being considered as a possible "evil."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.