Wednesday, May 18, 2016

The Lesser of Two Evils

A fellow over at Reason magazine makes a decent argument as to why voting for the lesser of two evils is a waste of time. Much of what he writes is pretty much how I feel, deep inside:

Not voting certainly provides the satisfaction of knowing that I did not sanction or legitimize the offerings of the two major parties. But that satisfaction is only personal and private. I want to more actively make my views known.

He also plays with voting numbers pretty nicely. He makes a good argument even for those that can't help but follow the crowd, although I'm not sure his second bullet point works toward that  end:

 " If I vote for the lesser of evils and hold my nose, my vote is blended in with millions of others—there is no way to register my dissatisfaction with the choices the two major parties have given me. There is no way to separate those who voted for a lesser of two evils from those who voted because they actually LIKED the candidate."


At 12:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Valid points.
I just wish the Libertarian's had a true libertarian candidate. Even with them we are voting for the lesser of 3 evils.
Johnson announced his selection for vp. Yep, the anti-gunner, anti-prosperous, pro-regulatory addict. Johnson, himself, is authoritarian.
Petersen thinks the west belongs to the Feds & burkas.
McAfee despises alcohol & drugs & loves cyber security.
Feldman has an anger management problem.
Sterling is just plumb ignorant, & apparently utilizes the I side with app to learn what the others have said about the issues.
Perry wants all groups to destroy the Feds completely and let the state's build their own weapons of mass destruction against each other.
There's not a single candidate worthy of voting for, except Justin Amash, but he won't be running until the next election.

At 12:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But, in order to keep Libertarian's on the ballot, so we can vote for Justin in another 4 years, we have to vote LP so the percentage stays up.
Petersen, in my opinion, would be the easiest to prove wrong wherever he's wrong.

At 4:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lew Rockwell article lays them out fairly. He's rather fond of Perry. (I am too, until he says no more fed gov).


Post a Comment

<< Home