Psssst (img-9gag-fun.9cache.com)
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Still vote even if it's not for someone listed. Politicians aren't going to capitulate so someone who isn't willing to get off their ass and vote.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Still vote even if it’s not for someone listed.

    No. This is a losing strategy as long as there is more than one person on the ballot. The proper strategy is to vote for the best of the available options that have any chance of winning. That is the nature of the first-past-the-post single-member-district system we have.

    If you have the opportunity to pick between the two candidates who have any chance of winning and instead choose any other option, then you have taken the vote that could have gotten you an option you would have preferred over the other option you would not have preferred and wasted it, thus helping the option you prefer less to win.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Sure. Voting important.

    And yet I am so sick of the effort people put into scolding others for their votes and the annoying strategic voting discussions around electability that infest our system.

    I can't vote for a single person who actively wants ranked choice or star voting so every election ends up being the same bullshit cycle of vote blue no matter who kick the can down the road vs the anti christ.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments