Memes

Colombia be like rn…

Ah yes, so the best option is to not vote and let them succeed unimpeded.

I'm all for voting for a better candidate, but we have a broken 2 party system, and it very much is if you don't vote for one of the two main parties, you are pretty much just not voting at all.

I don't vote for this person. I'm voting against that person.

also known as

Fixed

No.

Look at how the system actually works. There are two choices. Both candidates have to compete for all the people who vote. If you sit out the election that doesn't mean either candidate will try to get your vote; they'll ignore you and go after the people who do vote.

Someone else came up with this analogy. It's like the trolley problem except the there's a third option. The third choice is to throw the switch to "Neither," but "Neither" isn't connected and the trolley kills someone anyway.

There is a better way! Ranked choice voting means no more voting for the lesser of two evils. Look into fo yourselves and others - vote to change the voting systems near you!

OK, what else do you suggest? Not voting? That just speeds the process up. Voting for the small but much better option? In a FPTP voting system (like the American one that I assume you're talking about), the spoiler effect means that's as good as not voting.

This is my issue with the leftist community in general, and especially the ml group. Because of idealism, they seem to ask for something that doesn't exist and not accept anything else.

*Long term effects of a broken 2 party voting system...

FTFY

Your caption totally doesn't match these graphs.

'The lesser evil' might as well be left (leaning) from the majorities POV. In that case the shift would be to the left. And furthermore you seem to be assuming that this shift continues because you keep voting for the 'lesser evil'?

I think that's contradictory. Voting for someone is telling them you like their course best. Why would they change their course if they are already getting the votes? (Or lead the polls?) They would only do so to capture another parties audience - and only if their own ideas are not popular (enough) already. So the contrary is true: Parties tend towards whoever is getting more votes. This is only logical, because that's ultimately what they need.

Having to vote for a 'lesser evil' just means your system is broken, corrupt, or you feel like you have no other option. In functioning democratic systems, you will see fluctuations based on the general sentiment towards current topics. What's currently going on tends to have a much more significant impact on voters than any ideals.

To give you a very simplistic example: Economy bad -> People vote for guy who (they think) will fix it. This was a big factor in Trumps victory. (And there are probably also more racist then you think.)

This is a lie. People just spread this to trick you into not voting so the Republicans win.

The short term effect of voting for the "greater evil" (or not voting at all): straight to the far, far right.

Incidentally that's also the effect of not voting for the lesser evil, you can just cut out the two steps in the middle then.

Also the lesser evil kills all enthousiam and loses the election.

In other words, "B-but..."

Meanwhile, Trump takes office in 2 months. Keep polishing that halo tho!

Yep, that's why I always vote for the bigger evil.

Voting for lesser evil is important although the lesser evil is still evil

Funny that a lot of people see this shit and immediately go but Dem and Rep, this shit applied for a lot of countries that have more than 2 parties. When the more popular parties are all shit people go with "lesser evil".

More like the Overton Window at work actually.

Biden will likely end up as one of the top 5 most progressive presidents ever. Society expects more from Democrats than they would've previously. There's nothing wrong w/ that, but the argument being presented seems misguided and like both sides nihilism.

Not sure this makes sense. I think the window shifts right as people continue to vote right.

From the Wikipedia article about the Overton window:

The most common misconception is that lawmakers themselves are in the business of shifting the Overton window. That is absolutely false. Lawmakers are actually in the business of detecting where the window is, and then moving to be in accordance with it.

Because yes, "the left" never changes anything, and only goes further right.

(hint: That's not how this works)

Over the decades we've made massive strides in equal rights for various marginalized groups. But sometimes the dance takes a step backwards before moving forward again.

Us commies weren't always "far" left.

Or we can go directly to the bottom frame like we're gonna do - but go ahead and keep rationalizing why your moral pedestal was too lofty to vote for Kamala.