Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

this_one wrote (edited )

In my opinion, yes. And so are people who didn't vote (who could).

And if Hillary won and you voted for her, you'd still be responsible for the actions of her government.

I know that's not the most anarchist thing to say, but to be honest, I'm more interested in making the world better (and less bad) than I am in ideological purity or whatever, and voting for a lesser of two evils is definitely a small contribution to making the world less bad.

That said, if you think you could spend whatever time it takes to vote more efficiently doing some other action that makes the world even less bad (or more good to balance things out or whatever), you should do that. But not voting is a choice, and you're still responsible for that.

3

Nuktuk OP wrote

So the only option that doesn't leave the voter responsible is if they vote third party? Wouldn't that be equivalent to not voting at all?

1

this_one wrote (edited )

In America, I'd say it's almost the same as not voting, but a bit worse, because you went to all the effort to vote and still did nothing. There is no extra effort required at that point to make a small contribution towards a less bad world, and you still didn't do it. If you're somewhere with a halfway-functional voting system, though, by all means vote for the least Evil.

Also, as I said in my first post: not voting is only something you should do if you use the time it would take to do something even better, which a 3rd-party vote absolutely comes nowhere near achieving. "A bit worse" is a bit of an understatement ;P

2

Nuktuk OP wrote

So voting for Trump is "bad" voting for Hillary is "bad" voting for anyone else is "bad" and not voting at all is also "bad"?

Am I understanding you correctly here? Are citizens always in some way responsible no matter how they vote/don't vote?

1

this_one wrote

Pretty much. They're all different degrees of "bad", so it's not like I think they're all exactly the same, but yeah.

1