I’d argue that there are 4 actions within the system. Vote red, vote blue, vote third party, and don’t vote. I’d argue that all 4 options will never lead to meaningful change.
Second, since we have no choice but to play the game we’ve been dropped in to, you should vote for short term damage mitigation.
Let’s draw the logical conclusion here.
Short term damage mitigation is the goal. There are three options that incur short term damage. Option 4, however, lets one continue working or resting, therefore incurring no damage at all.
As all 4 options don’t lead to any meaningful change, option 4 is the best option.
Damage mitigation isn’t the only thing. By voting for the party you support you’re showing solidarity with that movement and also demonstrating to everyone else how the system doesn’t work.
I don’t think I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that the time it takes to look into a candidate is the damage being done? I was thinking on a larger scale. All 4 options lead to a politician getting sworn in, who will inevitably, directly cause people to die. Picking the option that appears to be likely to kill the least people would theoretically cause the least damage in their 4 years. I’m calling 4 years the short term here.
I don’t agree with this, but I understand the sentiment. While I think, at the core of it, the folks at the top of both sides have the same goals in mind, I don’t think the elections are rigged to that degree. Also, while voting 3rd party feels like a waste of a vote, I don’t see it as one, since third party votes are counted, and can have some semblance of social sway. Not voting and voting for a party that you disagree most with will have the same effect however, since both pull the vote towards the candidate you like the least.
Let’s draw the logical conclusion here.
Short term damage mitigation is the goal. There are three options that incur short term damage. Option 4, however, lets one continue working or resting, therefore incurring no damage at all.
As all 4 options don’t lead to any meaningful change, option 4 is the best option.
Damage mitigation isn’t the only thing. By voting for the party you support you’re showing solidarity with that movement and also demonstrating to everyone else how the system doesn’t work.
I don’t think I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that the time it takes to look into a candidate is the damage being done? I was thinking on a larger scale. All 4 options lead to a politician getting sworn in, who will inevitably, directly cause people to die. Picking the option that appears to be likely to kill the least people would theoretically cause the least damage in their 4 years. I’m calling 4 years the short term here.
All 4 options lead to the same politician getting sworn in.
I don’t agree with this, but I understand the sentiment. While I think, at the core of it, the folks at the top of both sides have the same goals in mind, I don’t think the elections are rigged to that degree. Also, while voting 3rd party feels like a waste of a vote, I don’t see it as one, since third party votes are counted, and can have some semblance of social sway. Not voting and voting for a party that you disagree most with will have the same effect however, since both pull the vote towards the candidate you like the least.