When will you stop voting for the lesser of two evils? (Poll)

[Agnosticsherbet]

21. If one pickle is a planck length longer than another. One is still longer.

One candidate is always slightly better than the other because no two people are every exactly alike. That candidate, if elected and given the chance, will legislate a slightly better program and better laws than the other.

That is the candidate that is best applicant for the job, not the lesser of two evils.

The argument of a lesser of two evils is voter suppression. Those who make it are saying, if you can't get exactly the candidate you want don't vote. If we lived in a country where elections that fail to meet say 80% of voter turnout are nullified that might be a good strategy for voters. We don't.

A majority of those who vote elect the government. So if only one voter out of 300 million shows up, that voter is the majority that elected the government he or she wanted. The rest of us get diddly-squat.

We are going to elect a government that consists of those who choose to run. We either stand up and make the difficult choice of choosing the best of the available candidates, or we let Republicans do that job.

The lesser of two evils is voter suppression. It creates hopelessness in those who don't have a lot of time, are financially stressed, or are uneducated concerning the way our system works by telling them their vote is pointless. It suppresses those people that most need a government that works for them.

Voter suppression disgusts me, whether it is done by removing voting machines, insisting on identification, or calling for people not to vote because they should not vote for the lesser of two evils.

We need to help people make good choices, not tell them it doesn't fucking matter.

Yes, we should have standards against which we measure our candidates. We should understand that our standard is not a candidate and be able to choose the candidates that come closest rather than tell people to not to vote.