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

[F4lconF16]

27. Some thoughts.

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.

Best applicant for the job doesn't mean either is any good at it. (Good for the people, of course--I'll bet Romney would have been a great president if you asked the rich.)

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

Totally false strawman argument. No one is saying, "If you can't get exactly the candidate you want". We're saying, "If the candidate is antithetical to most of what you believe in". Even then, many are not advocating against voting--they're simply saying that they've hit a point where they can no longer support a system that is actively working against them.

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.

What you and many others don't seem to consider is that for many people, they are already hopeless. They are already financially stressed, homeless, or worse. They are well-educated, and they are tired. They don't need to be told their vote is pointless--they know it is. There have been a number of studies that directly show that we live in an oligarchy, not a democracy. When the vast majority of people support something and politicians won't, then that is what tells people their vote is pointless. Not those of us who happen to notice deciding to say something about it.

Also, here's the other thing: many people can't afford to have someone who doesn't do the right thing any longer. I see a ton of people here saying that they can't afford to lose more benefits, more food security, their house, etc., and while I entirely sympathize with them, we can't forget that there are huge numbers of people who have already lost it all. They can't afford 4-8 more years of a slow corporate death; if they don't get help now, they're toast. These are a big chunk of the people who won't vote for a candidate who only kind of supports them. When we elect someone to slow the losses, we're still losing ground, no?

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

Again, no one is saying that. We are saying that it matters so fucking much that we can't afford to compromise with insanity anymore. We need representation, we need help, we need to fight and we need someone to fight for, and we need all this NOW. Not later.