The lesser of 2 evils

Funny, I thought my vote was for the person I voted for. I had no idea that i was voting for Obama if I do not vote for McCain. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Click to expand...

Say in an election, there are exactly one million and 1 people in your state. 500,000 of them vote for Obama. 499,999 of them vote for McCain. In protest, you and your friend vote for Ron Paul. Obama wins.

Now switch out Obama's name with Clinton, McCain's name with Bush I, and Ron Paul's name with Ross Perot.

Or switch out Obama's name with Bush II, McCain's name with Gore, and Ron Paul's name with Ralph Nader.
 
The only way to keep Obama (or Hillary, as the case may be) is for McCain to win. The only tangible effect of a "protest vote" will be to help Obama/Hillary win.
 
You almost have me convinced to not "throw away my protest vote". But if I don't write-in, then I will vote the liberal Dem, rather than a liberal Republican.:D
 
The only way to keep Obama (or Hillary, as the case may be) is for McCain to win. The only tangible effect of a "protest vote" will be to help Obama/Hillary win.
Click to expand...

And, what, we're left with Mr. Liberal Republican John McCain as president?

That is not really a strong argument on behalf of your theory. Your theory only works if the Republican is actually Conservative in his/her beliefs.
 
Anyone who votes for someone not on the ballot (like Ron Paul, Harry Truman or Mickey Mouse) in a protest vote is throwing their vote away.
Click to expand...
Mickey Mouse??? Why would anyone vote for that fascist when we have a much better alternative?

Puf4Prez.jpg
 
To me, it is a choice between distasteful, evil and horribly evil.

Worst to less worse:

Obama
Hillary
McCain

Since McCain is merely distasteful in my eyes, I'll hold my nose and give him my vote. Not that I like him, but because the other options are simply disastrous.
 
Let's be real about this. The only reason we don't kick both parties to the curb is because of the failure of Ross Perot and the results we ended up with. Nothing more.
 
Let's be real about this. The only reason we don't kick both parties to the curb is because of the failure of Ross Perot and the results we ended up with. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. The reason why we haven't thrown them both out is that there isn't a truly viable alternative. Unfortunately, Perot wasn't really viable. Yes, it is partially due to what we got with Perot. But then again, Perot wasn't able to rally enough support from disgruntled voters of BOTH major parties, and the party he was able to "raid" for support for was the less bad of the 2. Hence, we ended up with the worst possible outcome -- the Dems won by default due to the split of the conservatives/centrists.
 
Bit McCain is strongly anti-Constitution.
Click to expand...
And Hillary and Obama aren't? If we were to throw out all of the denizens of DC who were anti-Constitution, there wouldn't be any of them left. Not that that's a bad concept, ya' know.
 
I'm still holding out for McCain to self-destruct, leaving Ron Paul the last Republican standing.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that you are hoping for a landslide democratic victory?

Or do you actually believe anyone beside a small fringe would really vote for Paul? You can admit it if you truly believe that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion...no matter how unlikely.
 
Well, if it were Paul vs Democrat, and you are currently urging Paul supporters to support McCain as the lesser of 2 evils, you would then have to support Paul as the "lesser of 2 evils", would you not?
 
Perot wasn't able to rally enough support from disgruntled voters of BOTH major parties, and the party he was able to "raid" for support for was the less bad of the 2. Hence, we ended up with the worst possible outcome -- the Dems won by default due to the split of the conservatives/centrists.
Click to expand...

This was a valuable lesson and one we need to remember. From all indications it will come down to a democratic candidate and a republican candidate to choose between. McCain is the most pro-gun of the likely choices available. Even if there is a 3rd party candidate that is more pro-gun or would be better candidate all the way around, if they can't possible win, voting for them really doesn't do much good, except to make a statement. And in the end, statements don't count for much when someone else is making legislation that you don't like.
 
So you are saying that you are hoping for a landslide democratic victory?

Or do you actually believe anyone beside a small fringe would really vote for Paul? You can admit it if you truly believe that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion...no matter how unlikely.
Click to expand...

I actually believe that. I don't know if enough would vote for him to put him over the top, but it's worth a shot. Otherwise we are stuck with the Sandwich Unfit for Consumption vs. the Oversized Feminine Hygeine Product. (To carry the metaphor entirely too far, maybe people have been eating that sandwich so long, they actually like it, in which case we are doomed)

Besides, I sent $50 to the RonPaul2008 campaign a few months ago, and I wanna get my money's worth :D
 
playboypenguin
So you are saying that you are hoping for a landslide democratic victory?

Or do you actually believe anyone beside a small fringe would really vote for Paul?
Click to expand...

Well, if Paul were the candidate and not McCain, then as a good Republican, I am sure you will admit that you would vote for Paul, right?

Ron Paul got 16% of the vote in Pennsylvania. That's not too shabby for a man who "supposedly" dropped out of the race. :)
http://www.politico.com/politics08/
 
The choice

between "evil" and "more evil" is far more consequential than the choice between "good" and "better", or even between "good" and "evil."

Stalin and Khrushchev were both evil, but if those were my only two choices, it'd be an easy decision, and writing in Santa Claus wouldn't be it.

--Shannon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top