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.
Also the lesser evil kills all enthousiam and loses the election.
Run for office and be the lesser evil.
Yep, that's why I always vote for the bigger evil.
Fixed
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!
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.)
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.
In my country we stopped voting the socdem party, because they betrayed the workers. From one election to the next they lost like half the votes.
For 4 years the conservative party ruled. But after that the socdem change their politics we voted them again and had had a fairly leftist government for the last year.
They are slacking again so I plan not to vote next election, hoping thar more people get the memo, they sink again in votes and sit to think on why people felt betrayed, and change for the better.
4 years of conservative party were worthy giving that after the socdems turned left again we conquer a lot of things that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise if we would have keep on voting their moderate centrist version.
We also voted for third parties when they said that it was throwing your vote away, and the other party got almost the same votes as the socdems(too bad they were not that good once they sat on office). My point is that courage is needed to make a change.
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.
As good as that video is, he ignores the strength elections have as damage control. Yes, large positive change needs the sort of efforts he's describing, but ignoring voting means a bad government will have far more opportunity to undo progress.
Really, the biggest takeaway from that video is that there are more tools than simply voting and protesting, which I don't think anyone is disagreeing with.
I don't think you got the main point of the video. Not only "large" change needs these efforts. Any progressive change does. As soon as there is no pressure by mass movements, politicians will drift to strengthen their power, which means moving to the right.
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.
Biden will likely end up as one of the top 5 most progressive presidents ever.
Biden will be remembered as the president with dementia who butchered Gaza.
That's unfair, he'll also be remembered for supporting segregation
That's unfair, he'll also be remembered for supporting the electoral college
exactly. i thought Biden was the shit until Gaza. now, I dont even care about him at all. he's just another politician.
With only manufactured circumstance tomfuel completely arbitrary result.
Wow.
Stay in school, kids.
Us commies weren't always "far" left.
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.
In an American vacuum I could see where you are coming from. In comparison with literally the entire rest of the world, it is clearly a flawed standpoint.
The American Democratic party is the oldest standing political party in the entire world. It last changed it's political stances in the 1960's and not because they wanted to, but because they needed to respond to the Republicans flipping the entire south in their favor.
Other countries have real leftist parties that actually get government members elected.
Homie, the Democraes right now are pretty much as much on the political right as the republicans were in the 90s.
Smugly claiming "that's not how this works" isn't as good a point as you think it is.
do you mean of not voting for them?
people don't vote, democrats lose, they think it's because they're too far left and move further to the right. meanwhile republican victories embolden them to push even harder into fascism
I vote for them, they move right. I don't vote for them, and vote third party, they move right. I join their party and vote in their primary's for progressive candidates, they move right.
It's almost like a bunch of really old, well off, lifetime establishment government folks just actually want to be conservative authoritarians. At BEST they are stuck in a mindset of 1969's ideas of what progressive politics are because that is when they became politicians.
I'm not an American but I would argue that Biden's resignation was in part due to people threatening to not vote. This wasn't a move to the left but organized threats of not voting can make a difference.
Personally, I would vote for the lesser evil unless there was some kind of organized movement. Where I live, we have more than 2 evils to choose from and I choose the smallest of them.
Biden was incapable of clearly communicating verbally for 2 hours straight in a debate. I'd argue that Biden stayed in as long as he did to enable them to feel empowered to force another Kamala on us rather than having to deal with a Warren, Sanders or even a Buttigieg winning the Primary. Kamala was 6th in line in the Primary when she dropped out in 2020.
Good point