The lesser of two evils
Options
MassiveDelta
Posts: 3,311 Member
This was mentioned in the welcome thread and I thought it would be a good discussion to have. This is not limited to a party or US politics. I think people everywhere that deal with political elections make a choice and more often then not its a "Lesser of Two Evils" decision.
A few questions to start.
Do you vote this way? Have you? Why?
In the last election cycle I had my eyes opened by a local conservative radio host. He basically laid out an argument about how we as American voters have fallen into this trap of always voting for TLTE (The Lesser of Two Evils). Why do we do it? Many times we are convinced that we are "throwing away" our vote if we don't vote for the more popular candidate? Who convinced us of that?
If EVERYONE feels this way what would happen if we all voted the way we REALLY wanted? Maybe the right candidate would actually get elected? Maybe our broken 2 Party system in the US would be over thrown.
What say you?
A few questions to start.
Do you vote this way? Have you? Why?
In the last election cycle I had my eyes opened by a local conservative radio host. He basically laid out an argument about how we as American voters have fallen into this trap of always voting for TLTE (The Lesser of Two Evils). Why do we do it? Many times we are convinced that we are "throwing away" our vote if we don't vote for the more popular candidate? Who convinced us of that?
If EVERYONE feels this way what would happen if we all voted the way we REALLY wanted? Maybe the right candidate would actually get elected? Maybe our broken 2 Party system in the US would be over thrown.
What say you?
0
Replies
-
The political system is broken but it's breakage starts in primary election process. For a candidate to get nominated by her political party, she needs to appeal to the outer edge of their party whose electors are the ones doing the nominating. Therefore the more extreme candidates tend to get nominated instead of a middle of the road candidates. This is the problem.
90% of Americans are middle of the road but the candidates they are presented with tend to be farther-left or farther-right than the electorate wants. This is why they feel like they are settling for the lesser of the two evils.0 -
Lets take for example the Last US presidential election.
Would you then suggest that John McCain and Barack Obama were outer edge candidates?0 -
Palin is DEFINITELY outer edge. Outer space even. :laugh: Obama was painted as an extreme liberal but he's been anything but. McCain has flip flopped more than a fish in too shallow water. I lived in AZ for 5 years. I gladly and whole heartedly voted for him in the Presidential primaries in 2000. When we moved to AZ I voted for him for Senate but with a bit less enthusiam. I voted for him in 2008 despite Palin and only because Obama scared me as being TOO far left. At least with McCain I knew what I was in for.
This coming election who I vote for will depend on who the GOP puts up. Perry is nuts. He makes GW Bush look intelligent and coherent. Bachmann doesn't stand a chance - Thank God(s). Huntsman could be good but he hasn't been given the attention of the others so I doubt he's even really on the radar. Cain is all but dead between that ridiculous 999 plan and his sexual harassment scandal. Romney could be a real contender. I think he's the only real chance the Republicans have of winning. Unfortunately, like you said, they tend to put up the most extreme and Romney isn't the right brand of Christian. IMO it will come down o what's more important to the GOP - fixing the economy or having the right kind of Christian candidate. If they want to fix the economy it will be Romney and he'll probably get my vote. If religion is more important Perry will get the nod and I'll vote Obama. We've had enough idiot Texas governors as President.0 -
I have never voted like that, but we have not the 2 party system in Norway which I think makes it easier. It goes all the way from far left to far right. Its not that I am always happy with my Prime minister or the other ministers, but its only for a few things that are not that important to me. The things that I care most about like health, welfare and education and such they handle things the way I want to. I also like that we are not a part of the European Union.0
-
U.S.
I don't recall ever voting FOR anyone. I'm always voting AGAINST the other candidate(s) (individually, or the party they represent). When it's a toss up between candidates, I vote against a party. However, I would cross party lines for a candidate if I felt compelled to. Party politics irritate me. I know they are a natural way of maintaining balance, but I think they stifle progress unnecessarily. I have never been so disgusted with politics (esp. party politics) as in the recent past, and have lost my taste for even keeping up with it. In fact, I'm so disgusted, I don't even know why I joined this group.0 -
I voted for Edwin Edwards for governor of Louisiana after the party I identified with at the time put up David Duke. Edwards was a known quantity and I despised him, but better an evil lizard than an evil wizard. Other than that, no, but I can't say that many of the people I've voted for have had my full, enthusiastic support either. McCain might have if he'd made it through the 2000 primaries, but his choice of Palin as his running mate disqualified him in 2008. I don't think Palin is evil, though, just nuts. What else can you say about someone who thinks the first amendment of the Constitution is there to protect politicians from the press rather than the other way around?0
-
I voted for John Kerry. He was the lesser of two evils in this liberal's opinion.0
-
If you listen to the campaign ads (and who can get away from them these days?) even the politicians are about the lesser of 2 evils. None of them tell you why they are a good choice. Instead they tell you why their opponent is th worse choice. Oh sure, they may spout off various promises but when has a politician ever kept a campaign promise to the average person?0
-
I haven't felt that way yet, I have always liked who I voted for.0
-
I'm quite far to the left in my political thinking, though I wasn't horrified by McCain in 2000. He disgusted me in 2008 however, and the thought of Palin anywhere near the White House was terrifying. But I was solidly in support of Obama then. I'm less enamored now though. But I cant see myself voting for anyone republican, especially given the field.
I did vote Romney as governor, however lesson learned. He campaigned as such a liberal republican. I suppose he had to, given the state, but he made abrupt changes in viewpoint as soon as he was in office. He's a snake, and I don't trust him.
At this point, I think the only person I would be happy with occupying the Oval Office is me!0 -
As a conservative who ususally votes Republican (though I have voted Libertarian and Constitution at the local level) I agree with your assessment and will NOT cast a vote for Romney. I don't trust him at all becaue of his flip flopping.
I did vote Romney as governor, however lesson learned. He campaigned as such a liberal republican. I suppose he had to, given the state, but he made abrupt changes in viewpoint as soon as he was in office. He's a snake, and I don't trust him.
Personally, I'd like us to vote for people like our original government officials, men and women who DON'T WANT THE JOB!0 -
As a conservative who ususally votes Republican (though I have voted Libertarian and Constitution at the local level) I agree with your assessment and will NOT cast a vote for Romney. I don't trust him at all becaue of his flip flopping.
I did vote Romney as governor, however lesson learned. He campaigned as such a liberal republican. I suppose he had to, given the state, but he made abrupt changes in viewpoint as soon as he was in office. He's a snake, and I don't trust him.
Personally, I'd like us to vote for people like our original government officials, men and women who DON'T WANT THE JOB!
Well Since the last election I have completely changed the way I vote. I am done voting against a candidate I will be voting for the candidate who I think is the best candidate not the candidate I think everyone else thinks can win. Its only a throw away vote if you vote for someone you didn't want.0 -
Sometimes the choice between "bad" and "worse" is a lot more significant (and dangerous) than between "good" and "bad".0
-
In the past our 2-party system was such that, even though the parties sometimes seemed monolithic, their large and diverse natures meant that different shades of opinion could still be considered. By the time you got to the two presidential candidates, it might seem like they looked the same, but the process allowed for a full debate of different shades of political opinion. Even though you might not have a "conservative" or a "progressive" candidate, groups favoring those positions did have some influence on the positions of the final candidate--in order to win the nomination, the candidate had to build a broad coalition of support.
What has happened in the past 10-20 years reflects what has happened in our society as a whole. The increasing concentration of wealth into a tiny percentage of the population, and the vast disparity that has developed between the top 1% (actually the top 0.1%) and the bottom 80% has allowed for almost the complete takeover of our political parties (and our government) by corporate interests. The explosion of money (esp following the United Citizens SCOTUS decision) means that, basically, members of Congress can fund campaigns, buy TV ads, etc, with little participation from the average citizen.
The most striking example is the rise of Newt Gingrich. Here is a guy whose entire staff quit on him earlier in the year, who has built almost no campaign structure in Iowa or New Hampshire, yet has zoomed to the lead in the polls in those states with only a couple of months before the primaries.
Iowa and New Hampshire have always justified their privileged positions as "first" primary states by saying it forced candidates to engage in "retail politics" and meet face-to-face with a large and diverse citizenry. It was supposedly a chance for voters to "kick the tires" and really focus in on what the candidates were all about.
For republicans, that hasn't been necessary at all. To me it seems like they barely even bother to give interviews anymore. Everything they say and do seems to be filtered through a prism of (controlled) campaign ads, (controlled) Facebook and Twitter statements and (controlled) appearances on Fox News and right-wing radio. For them, that's probably a good thing since anytime they have opened their mouths to say an unscripted word, they have proven that they are ignorant fools.
But it's gotten to the point where they don't care. They can sit back and just bomb the airways with ads, like the Allied raids on Germany in WWII.
The 2012 election is going to be grotesque. My only hope is that people will be so repulsed, they will demand changes. But with all the corporate $$ available, I don't think even that will make a difference. The politicians can just tell their constituents to f--k off.0 -
If you listen to the campaign ads (and who can get away from them these days?) even the politicians are about the lesser of 2 evils. None of them tell you why they are a good choice. Instead they tell you why their opponent is th worse choice. Oh sure, they may spout off various promises but when has a politician ever kept a campaign promise to the average person?
Here's the thing -- politicians do negative advertising because negative advertising works. Pure and simple. Any politician who tries to run an honest, positive campaign will be pulverized.
When placing blame for the negativity of our campaigns, the first finger needs to be pointed at the mirror. We are getting what we deserve.
To be honest, I look at some of the comments on some of these debate forums (e.g. OWS) and the lack of in-depth understanding of the issues is striking. People either mistake a reflexive emotional reaction for a policy position or just throw cliches and talking points back and forth.
For all of the sturm and drang about the Affordable Care Act last year, I don't think I ever heard one thoughtful public discussion of the bill or of healthcare in general during the entire process--at least not in any of the popular media.
As Dave Alvin wrote in "Common Man":
"for better or worse -- we get what we deserve"0 -
As a conservative who ususally votes Republican (though I have voted Libertarian and Constitution at the local level) I agree with your assessment and will NOT cast a vote for Romney. I don't trust him at all becaue of his flip flopping.
I did vote Romney as governor, however lesson learned. He campaigned as such a liberal republican. I suppose he had to, given the state, but he made abrupt changes in viewpoint as soon as he was in office. He's a snake, and I don't trust him.
Personally, I'd like us to vote for people like our original government officials, men and women who DON'T WANT THE JOB!
Well Since the last election I have completely changed the way I vote. I am done voting against a candidate I will be voting for the candidate who I think is the best candidate not the candidate I think everyone else thinks can win. Its only a throw away vote if you vote for someone you didn't want.
[/quo I am done voting against a candidate I will be voting for the candidate who I think is the best candidate not the candidate I think everyone else thinks can win.te]
interesting. I'm wondering how you can determine who is the better candidate with the millions of dollars in the system spewing out and out lies and people willing to use scare tactics, half truths and misinformation?.0
