And so the candidates who are even further away from your beliefs win and decide the circumstances of your life. Democracy rewards those who cast a vote, for the winning candidate, with a say in their representation.
Someone will represent you, faithfully or not, come inauguration. You can either mitigate the inevitable damage by voting for the capitalist stooge who believes in human rights, or you can live with the capitalist stooge who wants to be a fascist dictator and has the support of an entire political party, several billionaires, and foreign dictators.
So long as our democracy is propped up on FPTP elections, voting lesser evil isactually kind of what it’s all about.
At some point we need to admit that harm reduction still means harm. At the very least, we shouldn’t berate people for looking for alternatives when the options presented would both cause unnecessary damage.
We admit that the whole time, that’s why we use the term “harm reduction” When one option would cause substantially more damage than the other, we should absolutely berate people for pushing totally ineffective alternatives that accomplish little other than increasing the probability of the worse option.
My heart goes out to those who want a no-evil option, believe me I’m one of them. But at some point we need to admit the alternative to lesser evil is greater evil.
And so the candidates who are even further away from your beliefs win and decide the circumstances of your life. Democracy rewards those who cast a vote, for the winning candidate, with a say in their representation.
Someone will represent you, faithfully or not, come inauguration. You can either mitigate the inevitable damage by voting for the capitalist stooge who believes in human rights, or you can live with the capitalist stooge who wants to be a fascist dictator and has the support of an entire political party, several billionaires, and foreign dictators.
So long as our democracy is propped up on FPTP elections, voting lesser evil isactually kind of what it’s all about.
At some point we need to admit that harm reduction still means harm. At the very least, we shouldn’t berate people for looking for alternatives when the options presented would both cause unnecessary damage.
We admit that the whole time, that’s why we use the term “harm reduction” When one option would cause substantially more damage than the other, we should absolutely berate people for pushing totally ineffective alternatives that accomplish little other than increasing the probability of the worse option.
My heart goes out to those who want a no-evil option, believe me I’m one of them. But at some point we need to admit the alternative to lesser evil is greater evil.