|
|
#11
06-28-2006, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Who is a Democrat and who is a Republican?
[ QUOTE ]
Why bother supporting a candidate or party that has no chance to win any important position in government? If you refuse to pick the lesser of two evils all you do is give more weight to those who do. [/ QUOTE ] Why vote at all, you're only one teeny worthless individual... 
|
|
#12
06-28-2006, 03:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a Democrat and who is a Republican?
Good one! I chose the 2nd option, BTW. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#13
06-28-2006, 03:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a Democrat and who is a Republican?
[ QUOTE ]
Why bother supporting a candidate or party that has no chance to win any important position in government? If you refuse to pick the lesser of two evils all you do is give more weight to those who do. [/ QUOTE ] Well, let's look at this strategically: I hate Democrats and Republicans equally. I don't agree with either's ideologies. I don't see any way to determine which is the "lesser of two evils." I gain nothing from voting for either, except a wonderful feeling of guilt. There is no reason for me to vote Republicrat. Furthermore, if I were to constrain myself to always voting for the lesser of two evils, and so do the majority of the voters, I/we have ensured that evil will always have power. I also have another option: not voting. If there aren't any candidates that I like running in the election, and I don't even think the federal government structure should exist, why would I want to endorse it by voting? I'd much rather contribute to the real majority; the people who don't vote at all. You can laugh and say that I'm throwing my vote away, but honestly, when is the last time your vote in a national election made a difference?
|
|
#14
06-28-2006, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a Democrat and who is a Republican?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why bother supporting a candidate or party that has no chance to win any important position in government? If you refuse to pick the lesser of two evils all you do is give more weight to those who do. [/ QUOTE ] Why vote at all, you're only one teeny worthless individual... [/ QUOTE ] "Support" does not equal "vote". Donating thousands of dollars to a particular party or candidate is far more important than your single vote.
|
|
#15
06-28-2006, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a Democrat and who is a Republican?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You do understand that voting for a 3rd party may be non-optimal in any current election, but serves as a meta-game vote for future elections? [/ QUOTE ] Highly doubtful [/ QUOTE ] It's a cute theory.
|
|
#17
06-28-2006, 03:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a Democrat and who is a Republican?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You do understand that voting for a 3rd party may be non-optimal in any current election, but serves as a meta-game vote for future elections? [/ QUOTE ] Highly doubtful [/ QUOTE ] This is the arguement that supporters of Nader in 2000 still make. According to their logic, the campaign of Ralph Nader gave us Howard Dean in 2004. Not sure if I agree.
|
|
#18
06-28-2006, 03:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a Democrat and who is a Republican?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You do understand that voting for a 3rd party may be non-optimal in any current election, but serves as a meta-game vote for future elections? [/ QUOTE ] Highly doubtful [/ QUOTE ] This is the arguement that supporters of Nader in 2000 still make. According to their logic, the campaign of Ralph Nader gave us Howard Dean in 2004. Not sure if I agree. [/ QUOTE ] It's far less of a reach to say that Nader's campaign in 2000 significantly hurt Gore, or that Perot's campaign significantly helped Clinton. If you were an evironmentalist who supported Nader in 2000, you ended up with a far worse alternative for your important issues becuase you supported someone with no hope of ever getting elected.
|
|
#19
06-28-2006, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a Democrat and who is a Republican?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You do understand that voting for a 3rd party may be non-optimal in any current election, but serves as a meta-game vote for future elections? [/ QUOTE ] Highly doubtful [/ QUOTE ] This is the arguement that supporters of Nader in 2000 still make. According to their logic, the campaign of Ralph Nader gave us Howard Dean in 2004. Not sure if I agree. [/ QUOTE ] And if it did, we are soooooo much the better for it. "Yaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
