this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
336 points (92.4% liked)

196

16276 readers
2545 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
336
rule problem (lemmy.cafe)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TotallynotJessica 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (9 children)

It's more accurate to say that they are votes for whoever wins. By not choosing between the 2 choices you know will win, you basically say that others should decide for you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (8 children)

Not to be rude but this is an oversimplified and incorrect view of voting and is the exact kind of mindset I am against.

If you try to insist non-voting is somehow support for a specific candidate, what does that say about people who can't vote for personal/health reasons? If someone working poverty wages, unable to get the day off to vote, can't get their vote counted, are they somehow a bad person?

Additionally, although less significant, I can't consider it morally wrong, ever, to vote third party. Strategically wrong, sure, it often is, but the point of a vote is to choose, and I can't blame someone for using their right to choose to be an idealist rather than a strategist. And honestly, in an election like this with so much frustration towards the major parties, 3rd party has a better chance of winning than usual... although I'm sure that is a stressful and unpleasant thing to hear if you dislike third parties.

[–] TotallynotJessica 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If someone working poverty wages, unable to get the day off to vote, can't get their vote counted, are they somehow a bad person?

That's called disenfranchisement. When you're disenfranchised, you don't have choice. Not liking people who make bad choices says nothing about people that cannot make the choice in the first place. What a weak ass strawman. Not cool 😑

It is morally wrong to "vote your conscience" when you should know the consequences of doing so. Government is a mechanism that has inputs and outputs that can be predicted to some extent. When you go against a clear prediction with dire consequences, you've done a bad thing that causes harm. I don't care about blaming you because you're deluded, but the effect of that action is unambiguously bad. It isn't about making the choice with the best outcome, but about making the choice that seems likely to have the best outcome.

It's like being in a death cult. You believe your own nonsense, but that doesn't make it right. It just means you were a victim at best. There's no need for me to consider blame or responsibility when I call drinking the cool-aid bad.

Third parties have a smaller chance than ever in the presidential election. There are no strong candidates from a 3rd party. Jill Stein? She sucks even if you ignore the Russia shit. The only unpleasant thing about your arguments is that they're so inadequate. I feel guilty about knocking them over.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Well if there is no practical point in our communicating, with our senses of morality being so alien to each other, could you at least avoid doing it anyways for the sake of being so insulting to me?

I don't need that condescension, thanks, I'm all topped up.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)