What's new
By:
Filters

If you have the slightest inclination to vote for someone other than an R or D, just do it!

Gameface

Gameface

1135809
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
Lesser of two evils? I've got the lesser of two evils for you, don't vote for either one of them. Vote for someone else...anyone else! I don't know if things will ever change but one thing I do know is that the difference between what Republicans and Democrats do after they're elected is so small it basically doesn't matter which one you choose. If you vote straight party either way you're basically voting for the illusion of choice because you are voting to keep the system the way it is.


Just say NO! to the two party system that is running this nation into the ground!

Let's get this party started.

(Thanks Trout for talking me out of sitting on my hands)
 
Amen brotha.

Vote for who you want. It does you no good to vote for the lesser of two evils. Thats the most idiotic theory ever.
 
I couldn't agree more. I voted Ron Paul. Will he win, no. But he's my guy and I am voting for who I want to be my President, not for who has the best chance. I hate the two party system. I wish more Americans would vote for the candidate they like, regardless of party.
 
crater77 said:
I couldn't agree more. I voted Ron Paul. Will he win, no. But he's my guy and I am voting for who I want to be my President, not for who has the best chance. I hate the two party system. I wish more Americans would vote for the candidate they like, regardless of party.
Click to expand...

Here here!
 
The theory of voting for whom you think best rather than just voting for the standard D or R is a great one.... except in States that can truly decide the election. I would agree that "the lesser of two evils" idea is ridiculous and not the way to choose; however, in the current political system, it is what dominates. Should it? No. Things would probably be better if more than two parties (which are both incredibly corrupt) actually had to legitimately fight to win against a 3rd party option.

That being said, this idea always brings up the 1992 election. People did not like either option from the major two parties (Bush Sr. and Clinton) so many voted for Ross Perot. Obviously Ross Perot didn't win - he didn't really even have a shot but it allowed Clinton to win because a good majority of those votes that went to Perot probably would have gone to Bush Sr. And here we are, 20 years later trying to find a way to fix what Clinton broke in his 8 years in office. That is why I personally choose to vote for a candidate from the two major political parties (at least at the national level). I know nothing will change unless people begin to do something to change it (i.e. vote for a third party) but too much is at stake to allow one of the candidates to win in the same way that Clinton won in 92.
 
Is Ron Paul on the ballot Utah or did you all just write him in?

And I voted for Jill Stein as well OB.
 
JAG said:
The theory of voting for whom you think best rather than just voting for the standard D or R is a great one.... except in States that can truly decide the election. I would agree that "the lesser of two evils" idea is ridiculous and not the way to choose; however, in the current political system, it is what dominates. Should it? No. Things would probably be better if more than two parties (which are both incredibly corrupt) actually had to legitimately fight to win against a 3rd party option.

That being said, this idea always brings up the 1992 election. People did not like either option from the major two parties (Bush Sr. and Clinton) so many voted for Ross Perot. Obviously Ross Perot didn't win - he didn't really even have a shot but it allowed Clinton to win because a good majority of those votes that went to Perot probably would have gone to Bush Sr. And here we are, 20 years later trying to find a way to fix what Clinton broke in his 8 years in office. That is why I personally choose to vote for a candidate from the two major political parties (at least at the national level). I know nothing will change unless people begin to do something to change it (i.e. vote for a third party) but too much is at stake to allow one of the candidates to win in the same way that Clinton won in 92.
Click to expand...


I find it quite humorous that you think Bush Sr. would have lead us to a better outcome than Clinton. I maintain that it didn't matter who won that election. Neither person was right for the job and neither was so much worse than the other that making sure they didn't win was imperative.
 
Voting for someone whose platform you don't fundamentally believe in is ridiculous.

I may have cast a vote for someone who has no chance to win, but I didn't contribute to the election of someone who doesn't really represent me.

BTW, I'd vote for anyone who pledged to abolish the electoral college.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top