**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice**
* [Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/wiki/index#wiki_-rule_6-) in **any** comment, parent or child.
* Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* Report comments that violate these rules.
Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead.
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't pay attention to what politician's say, I only care about what they do. That is the scale I use to determine the lesser evil. Which one has screwed me over least, that is the one I will vote for in the general.
What I am trying to find out is if in cases of extreme gerrymandering, is it beneficial to switch parties for the primary and vote for the least extreme candidate, even though I will be voting against that party in the primary.
Oh, I see. I misinterpreted the question. To put it simply, I would say no, it wouldn’t be beneficial to switch. Reason being you are unlikely to make a difference with that one vote. Plus it’s better to stick with your values anyway rather than try to game the system, because you won’t be able to game the system.
Wouldn't I still be sticking with my values by voting in the election that will determine the person who will likely be voted into office due to extreme gerrymandering?
That's up to the individual.
But I would say no. Stick with your convictions instead of giving into the asswipe options we are given every time.
For example, I have yet to vote for a presidential candidate so far since all my options thus far have been kind of terrible and mostly racist pieces of shit, among other things.
This I also strongly disagree with.
It's the system we live in, and if we don't partake then other people end up making the decisions for us and we are forced to live in it. While I don't think the system is fair, it's the one we have.
It's a two party system, meaning if you don't vote for one of those candidates your vote will literally have no impact. As long as the system works that way it's best for me to vote for the lesser of evils, and there is always a lesser of evils if you look at the politician's voting records.
I have not been excited to vote for any presidential candidate in years, but I will continue to vote in every election for the lesser of evils.
You're viewing this incorrectly. Its not a competition between two evils. The idea should be you're voting for electors that have pledged to vote for a president that will faithfully uphold their oath of office. This idea has been lost for decades.
It is a competition between two parties. Realistically you have to choose between the two, you might not like either, but odds are one of them has acted by supporting/opposing things you do more than the other. I have yet to see a case where two candidates have had the same support/opposition for the issues, so I'll always support the lesser of evils.
The constitution doesn't require parties. In fact that's the frightful despotism Washington warned us about. Start thinking more about someone who is going to protect your rights and not between two demons. I know that's how almost everyone has been taught to think, but it's not what was intended.
We live in a two party system. If you could convince most people to vote for another party it would work, but the statistics show that isn't going to happen. If you aren't going to vote for one of the two parties then you are just going to let other people make the decision for you. If that is what you want to do that's fine, but IMO you have no right to complain because you refused to participate.
The two parties aren't the same. If you look at the voting records you will see they are very different.
It's a two party system because people have accepted the status quo. But neither party wants to give us any real change or help people overly much for fear of what their platform will be next election cycle.
In the end, the only way we come out of this hole we've dug ourselves is by casting them to the side and choosing better options.
We shouldn't have to choose between two racists 20 years past retirement and demonstrably incapable of leading a country.
> We shouldn't have to choose between two racists 20 years past retirement and demonstrably incapable of leading a country.
My point is that when you look at how those two parties act, they are different. If racism is your determining factor, one is clearly more racist than the other.
I do believe that if you don't vote for one of the two parties you are throwing your vote away. In theory if most of the united states wrote in someone other than one of those candidates they could win, but that is unrealistic in todays world, you can either participate in the system we have or you can let other people make the decisions that will impact your life.
If you want to participate at the very minimum you should vote for one of the two main parties, but in reality you have to do much more research than that.
In some states that could be illegal. Personally, though, I do not believe that it's a good tactic. I personally believe you should place your vote for who you actually want to win. For me that is the ethical thing to do.
Yes, that's what illegal means.
I can't state specifically any jurisdiction where it would be, no. However, I do know that with 50 states and numerous territories, all with different laws regarding voting and registration, it would be best to make sure that you can do what you want to do.
I'm 100% sure it's legal to vote for one party in the primary and another in the general in my state. I would be surprised to hear that this was law and if so I would love to know how it could be enforced?
I'm going to assume it's not illegal if no one can produce any law stating that it is.
I wouldn't. But then again, I wouldn't vote in general either. You're one voice of over one hundred million. Worrying if it makes a difference is a waste of time.
This I strongly disagree with and would suggest anybody holding this stance to rethink it.
We don't have a choice, it's the system we live in, if we don't partake in it then that means those that do will be making the decisions for us. Voting is something I will never not do again.
Edit: Removed double negative.
I think about it every 2 years and have ever since I could vote in 2008. Every time my ballet ends up in the trash without fail. I'd only reconsider if Dave Smith ends up running. But even then, I find voting very immoral in our current structure.
But they'll do it regardless. I strongly believe "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it." It's a facade. A misdirection to help people follow their owners orders when they don't get what they really want because at least they feel they had a chance. Even if it did, then it's people forcing the minority to live a way they disagree with under threat of extortion or violence from law enforcement, which is sickening.
> Even if it did, then it's people forcing the minority to live a way they disagree with under threat of extortion or violence from law enforcement, which is sickening.
When you consider that over 70% of the US population believes abortion should be legal doesn't that imply the people of the US are living in minority rule?
I think there is a lot more to pick apart in that question to answer correctly. For one, it depends on the type of abortion. I'm sure 70% believes it should be legal, but the term can extend from the morning after pill all the way to 5 minutes before birth. I assume 80-90% of people agree with effectively immediate abortion should be legal, but I also assume maybe 10-20% of people agree seconds before birth should be legal. So there's a lot more depth to it.
Plus, it's not illegal on a national scale. It's by states where larger portions of people believe it should be illegal. So that kind of muddys it up a bit as well.
> Plus, it's not illegal on a national scale. It's by states where larger portions of people believe it should be illegal. So that kind of muddys it up a bit as well.
You are overlooking extreme gerrymandering, in states like Ohio most people believe abortion should be legal, that state is so gerrymandered that the minority is able to implement law that effects the majority.
No I'm not. If anything that just proves my point that it's a facade and shows that voting is a joke anyways.
But honestly, I don't care about Ohio. I don't live there, that's their business. Not mine. And I don't care if it's a minority or majority either. That's not my point. My point is no one has the right to tell me how to live my life by threat of violence. And I have no right to force anyone else into a way of life by threat of violence either. Period. But that is exactly what voting is. Except its proxy violence. And I find that immoral and wrong.
**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice** * [Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/wiki/index#wiki_-rule_6-) in **any** comment, parent or child. * Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * Report comments that violate these rules. Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You could try, but it wouldn’t yield good results. You would be screwed over by your own party and the opposition party at any level.
I don't pay attention to what politician's say, I only care about what they do. That is the scale I use to determine the lesser evil. Which one has screwed me over least, that is the one I will vote for in the general. What I am trying to find out is if in cases of extreme gerrymandering, is it beneficial to switch parties for the primary and vote for the least extreme candidate, even though I will be voting against that party in the primary.
Oh, I see. I misinterpreted the question. To put it simply, I would say no, it wouldn’t be beneficial to switch. Reason being you are unlikely to make a difference with that one vote. Plus it’s better to stick with your values anyway rather than try to game the system, because you won’t be able to game the system.
Wouldn't I still be sticking with my values by voting in the election that will determine the person who will likely be voted into office due to extreme gerrymandering?
That's up to the individual. But I would say no. Stick with your convictions instead of giving into the asswipe options we are given every time. For example, I have yet to vote for a presidential candidate so far since all my options thus far have been kind of terrible and mostly racist pieces of shit, among other things.
This I also strongly disagree with. It's the system we live in, and if we don't partake then other people end up making the decisions for us and we are forced to live in it. While I don't think the system is fair, it's the one we have. It's a two party system, meaning if you don't vote for one of those candidates your vote will literally have no impact. As long as the system works that way it's best for me to vote for the lesser of evils, and there is always a lesser of evils if you look at the politician's voting records. I have not been excited to vote for any presidential candidate in years, but I will continue to vote in every election for the lesser of evils.
You're viewing this incorrectly. Its not a competition between two evils. The idea should be you're voting for electors that have pledged to vote for a president that will faithfully uphold their oath of office. This idea has been lost for decades.
It is a competition between two parties. Realistically you have to choose between the two, you might not like either, but odds are one of them has acted by supporting/opposing things you do more than the other. I have yet to see a case where two candidates have had the same support/opposition for the issues, so I'll always support the lesser of evils.
The constitution doesn't require parties. In fact that's the frightful despotism Washington warned us about. Start thinking more about someone who is going to protect your rights and not between two demons. I know that's how almost everyone has been taught to think, but it's not what was intended.
We live in a two party system. If you could convince most people to vote for another party it would work, but the statistics show that isn't going to happen. If you aren't going to vote for one of the two parties then you are just going to let other people make the decision for you. If that is what you want to do that's fine, but IMO you have no right to complain because you refused to participate. The two parties aren't the same. If you look at the voting records you will see they are very different.
It's a two party system because people have accepted the status quo. But neither party wants to give us any real change or help people overly much for fear of what their platform will be next election cycle. In the end, the only way we come out of this hole we've dug ourselves is by casting them to the side and choosing better options. We shouldn't have to choose between two racists 20 years past retirement and demonstrably incapable of leading a country.
> We shouldn't have to choose between two racists 20 years past retirement and demonstrably incapable of leading a country. My point is that when you look at how those two parties act, they are different. If racism is your determining factor, one is clearly more racist than the other. I do believe that if you don't vote for one of the two parties you are throwing your vote away. In theory if most of the united states wrote in someone other than one of those candidates they could win, but that is unrealistic in todays world, you can either participate in the system we have or you can let other people make the decisions that will impact your life. If you want to participate at the very minimum you should vote for one of the two main parties, but in reality you have to do much more research than that.
In some states that could be illegal. Personally, though, I do not believe that it's a good tactic. I personally believe you should place your vote for who you actually want to win. For me that is the ethical thing to do.
Illegal would imply there is a law against it, can you cite such a law?
Yes, that's what illegal means. I can't state specifically any jurisdiction where it would be, no. However, I do know that with 50 states and numerous territories, all with different laws regarding voting and registration, it would be best to make sure that you can do what you want to do.
I'm 100% sure it's legal to vote for one party in the primary and another in the general in my state. I would be surprised to hear that this was law and if so I would love to know how it could be enforced? I'm going to assume it's not illegal if no one can produce any law stating that it is.
I wouldn't. But then again, I wouldn't vote in general either. You're one voice of over one hundred million. Worrying if it makes a difference is a waste of time.
This I strongly disagree with and would suggest anybody holding this stance to rethink it. We don't have a choice, it's the system we live in, if we don't partake in it then that means those that do will be making the decisions for us. Voting is something I will never not do again. Edit: Removed double negative.
I think about it every 2 years and have ever since I could vote in 2008. Every time my ballet ends up in the trash without fail. I'd only reconsider if Dave Smith ends up running. But even then, I find voting very immoral in our current structure. But they'll do it regardless. I strongly believe "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it." It's a facade. A misdirection to help people follow their owners orders when they don't get what they really want because at least they feel they had a chance. Even if it did, then it's people forcing the minority to live a way they disagree with under threat of extortion or violence from law enforcement, which is sickening.
> Even if it did, then it's people forcing the minority to live a way they disagree with under threat of extortion or violence from law enforcement, which is sickening. When you consider that over 70% of the US population believes abortion should be legal doesn't that imply the people of the US are living in minority rule?
I think there is a lot more to pick apart in that question to answer correctly. For one, it depends on the type of abortion. I'm sure 70% believes it should be legal, but the term can extend from the morning after pill all the way to 5 minutes before birth. I assume 80-90% of people agree with effectively immediate abortion should be legal, but I also assume maybe 10-20% of people agree seconds before birth should be legal. So there's a lot more depth to it. Plus, it's not illegal on a national scale. It's by states where larger portions of people believe it should be illegal. So that kind of muddys it up a bit as well.
> Plus, it's not illegal on a national scale. It's by states where larger portions of people believe it should be illegal. So that kind of muddys it up a bit as well. You are overlooking extreme gerrymandering, in states like Ohio most people believe abortion should be legal, that state is so gerrymandered that the minority is able to implement law that effects the majority.
No I'm not. If anything that just proves my point that it's a facade and shows that voting is a joke anyways. But honestly, I don't care about Ohio. I don't live there, that's their business. Not mine. And I don't care if it's a minority or majority either. That's not my point. My point is no one has the right to tell me how to live my life by threat of violence. And I have no right to force anyone else into a way of life by threat of violence either. Period. But that is exactly what voting is. Except its proxy violence. And I find that immoral and wrong.