I’m not allowing anything. I’m just voting with my conscience. These two ineffective octogenarians are not suitable leaders, and the two parties simply MUST know that.
Last reply because I sense you either don’t see the threat, don’t want to see it, or trust in the system to self correct.
If it were a truly equal system, you would be right. I completely agree that tactical voting should not be needed and I wish your ideological standpoint was effective in sending messages to these guys.
Fact is they do not care how many people vote outside the top two if they still win. You might be trying to send a message but they won’t hear it. Unless you can convince 60 million people to follow you of course.
The Republicans particularly know that the protest votes are typically subtracted from the democrat tally.
PR is the only solution that provides the type of government you want but you don’t have it yet and if you want it, what you plan to do is probably reducing the likelihood you’ll ever get it .
It is a sad fact that a vote for anyone but the two biggest parties (in almost every country) is essentially wasted.
When you have PR vote your conscience all the way. With it you may even have more choice because there would be less pressure for candidates like to firm an alliance with a large party. Until then the very real threat to democracy is far more pressing. Donald Trump tried to take the white house by force 3 years ago. This proved he cares more about his own power than the will of the people. He expended a lot of energy trying to use the system against itself to overturn the results when the capitol riots failed. For decades, the Republicans have repeatedly gerrymandered and tried to prevent certain groups from voting, typically minorities. Lately some Republicans at CPAC called for the end of democracy.
I’m not saying the Democrats are saints that can do no wrong, but at least they are not openly trying to rig the system.
If Trump is legitimately elected this time, your protest vote may mean even less next time than it does this time, because democracy in the United States might look more like Russian “elections”. 87% going one way. No politician is that popular. Side note , I’m surprised those guys don’t choose more realistic numbers to make their “election” more credible, but their ego won’t let them.
But, you do you, just don’t complain about the outcome when one of those octogenarian politicians is in power.
“I didn’t vote for him” won’t do you much good when it hurts your wallet, or worse your freedoms.
PS the point of giant douche vs. Turd sandwich was that no candidate will be perfect. We always have to choose based on who aligns best with our viewpoint even if that choice is far from ideal. From the outside I see two very different candidates. Both are to the right of my politics, but only one wanted to take the people’s choice away altogether.
Hardly.
Voter suppression is creating an atmosphere of fear around polling stations. Creating voter registration laws. Setting up fake ballot boxes. Etc.
In only asking you to really think about what happens when you vote for each of them. Compare those futures. Then decide. I’m not stopping you voting however you want. There’s no real pressure from a random person in another country on the Internet. I.e. Me.
If Trump takes away your vote because your face doesn’t fit and starts getting 80% of the vote, saying “it’s not my fault, I didn’t vote for him” will do you no good. If he does do those things, and it’s not like he hasn’t been signalling it for years, you may never have a real vote again.
But if you want to dismiss me as trying to suppress your vote or as a fascist, don’t say I didn’t warn you, and all I asked you to do was think.
Agree with you there. PR is the only way you really have one, and even then, as long as there is so much money in politics, you are still not getting candidates who deserve to be there, just the ones that can afford to.
I’m not allowing anything. I’m just voting with my conscience. These two ineffective octogenarians are not suitable leaders, and the two parties simply MUST know that.
Last reply because I sense you either don’t see the threat, don’t want to see it, or trust in the system to self correct.
If it were a truly equal system, you would be right. I completely agree that tactical voting should not be needed and I wish your ideological standpoint was effective in sending messages to these guys.
Fact is they do not care how many people vote outside the top two if they still win. You might be trying to send a message but they won’t hear it. Unless you can convince 60 million people to follow you of course.
The Republicans particularly know that the protest votes are typically subtracted from the democrat tally.
PR is the only solution that provides the type of government you want but you don’t have it yet and if you want it, what you plan to do is probably reducing the likelihood you’ll ever get it .
It is a sad fact that a vote for anyone but the two biggest parties (in almost every country) is essentially wasted.
When you have PR vote your conscience all the way. With it you may even have more choice because there would be less pressure for candidates like to firm an alliance with a large party. Until then the very real threat to democracy is far more pressing. Donald Trump tried to take the white house by force 3 years ago. This proved he cares more about his own power than the will of the people. He expended a lot of energy trying to use the system against itself to overturn the results when the capitol riots failed. For decades, the Republicans have repeatedly gerrymandered and tried to prevent certain groups from voting, typically minorities. Lately some Republicans at CPAC called for the end of democracy.
I’m not saying the Democrats are saints that can do no wrong, but at least they are not openly trying to rig the system.
If Trump is legitimately elected this time, your protest vote may mean even less next time than it does this time, because democracy in the United States might look more like Russian “elections”. 87% going one way. No politician is that popular. Side note , I’m surprised those guys don’t choose more realistic numbers to make their “election” more credible, but their ego won’t let them.
But, you do you, just don’t complain about the outcome when one of those octogenarian politicians is in power. “I didn’t vote for him” won’t do you much good when it hurts your wallet, or worse your freedoms.
PS the point of giant douche vs. Turd sandwich was that no candidate will be perfect. We always have to choose based on who aligns best with our viewpoint even if that choice is far from ideal. From the outside I see two very different candidates. Both are to the right of my politics, but only one wanted to take the people’s choice away altogether.
soundl like voter suppression tactics.
Hardly. Voter suppression is creating an atmosphere of fear around polling stations. Creating voter registration laws. Setting up fake ballot boxes. Etc. In only asking you to really think about what happens when you vote for each of them. Compare those futures. Then decide. I’m not stopping you voting however you want. There’s no real pressure from a random person in another country on the Internet. I.e. Me.
If Trump takes away your vote because your face doesn’t fit and starts getting 80% of the vote, saying “it’s not my fault, I didn’t vote for him” will do you no good. If he does do those things, and it’s not like he hasn’t been signalling it for years, you may never have a real vote again. But if you want to dismiss me as trying to suppress your vote or as a fascist, don’t say I didn’t warn you, and all I asked you to do was think.
when was there ever a real vote?
Agree with you there. PR is the only way you really have one, and even then, as long as there is so much money in politics, you are still not getting candidates who deserve to be there, just the ones that can afford to.