Reply #32: The OP isn't endorsing the least-awful alternative. The OP is endorsing the MOST awful alternative,

[BzaDem]

under the theory that if his action results in the maximum pain inflicted on the voting population at large, then the voting population will "wake up" and change their voting behavior, so we can bounce back at some undefined point. It isn't just ME who is claiming that it would be the most awful alternative -- it is the OP itself, who is advocating to bring the most pain SPECIFICALLY to get us to hit "rock bottom" (his words) as soon as possible.

Purposefully taking an action that results in the maximum pain on other people for the purpose of changing their future voting behavior is the definition of terrorism. The phrase "in the long run, we are all dead" is quite applicable here.