I think your question is intended to silently include “what’s the alternative for a voter [in a given election]?” - if I’m wrong about that, my bad.
But the issue to me is not about choices in individual elections. The issue is that these vocally “lesser of two evils” voters do their thing, then smugly pat themselves on the back and self-righteously condemn the sad state of affairs, every time…
And then continue to take the idiot bait that anything left of present Democrats is scary bad socialism/communism, no further-left candidate can have a shot with real Americans, and wouldn’t our energy be better spent trying to find things we agree on and can get done together?
They don’t learn anything about how the rest of the world works politically, they don’t know dick about any candidates or ideas that don’t appear ready-made and polished on a television screen, and yet they think they’re the ones helping, and if only we all just did like them, this place would turn right around. They want to do nothing, to sound wise, and to feel morally superior all at the same time. This is the core of the vocally “lesser of two evils” voters.
I know because I used to be one of these insufferable people I’m describing.
The issue is that these vocally “lesser of two evils” voters do their thing, then smugly pat themselves on the back and self-righteously condemn the sad state of affairs, every time…
Why do you assume this? It’s probably true for the quiet “lesser of two evil” voters, but the vocal ones tend to be leftists who recognize the limitations of FPTP elections and are doing other leftist things, and are trying to get others to help make the environment marginally less hostile so they can do leftist things more effectively.
I know because I’m one of those actively leftist “lesser of two evil” voters.
Well, yeah, fair point lol, I definitely have an imagined “type” in mind here and jumped to the assumption that it’s all those who are vocally “lesser of two evils”.
Really I was less making an assumption and more just (inaccurately, as you pointed out) using that as shorthand for the set of voters who vote lesser of two evils, but then go on to do the kinds of shit that allows for the image above. Berate others for daring to demand more than two evils, or encourage trying to find common ground with the increasingly far right as a viable means of progress, and worse.
You’re right, it’s not everyone who talks about the importance of still voting when it’s two bad candidates, and I myself think it’s important to do that. I think it just feels like the folks who are always making the discussion about that idea are also usually the ones doing the other destructive (while condescendingly ~well-intentioned) stuff I was describing. Sounds like you feel the opposite, which I’m willing to chalk up to the nature of having different experiences, idk. Definitely not common enough to use as shorthand apparently, that’s on me.
Berate others for daring to demand more than two evils
I don’t think it’s for “daring to demand”, it’s more about the nature, mechanics, and outcome of the demand.
I’m all for developing better alternatives in the background while applying effective pressure on the lesser evil, to establish a foundation to make demands when the time is right and the social apparatus is prepared to enforce those demands.
I’m not at all about protest abstention or pushing longshot third parties. At least a part of the voices pushing for that reek of bad faith actors deliberately trying to cause fractures to give greater evil better odds. Not all of it, but even some of the rest is just parroting psy-op taking points.
I agree just voting isn’t enough, but I think most of the voices that care enough to keep people voting strategically in the face of these fractures care enough to be taking other actions too. The lazy, self-righteous ones don’t care enough to push any strategy at all.
I think your question is intended to silently include “what’s the alternative for a voter [in a given election]?” - if I’m wrong about that, my bad.
But the issue to me is not about choices in individual elections. The issue is that these vocally “lesser of two evils” voters do their thing, then smugly pat themselves on the back and self-righteously condemn the sad state of affairs, every time…
And then continue to take the idiot bait that anything left of present Democrats is scary bad socialism/communism, no further-left candidate can have a shot with real Americans, and wouldn’t our energy be better spent trying to find things we agree on and can get done together?
They don’t learn anything about how the rest of the world works politically, they don’t know dick about any candidates or ideas that don’t appear ready-made and polished on a television screen, and yet they think they’re the ones helping, and if only we all just did like them, this place would turn right around. They want to do nothing, to sound wise, and to feel morally superior all at the same time. This is the core of the vocally “lesser of two evils” voters.
I know because I used to be one of these insufferable people I’m describing.
Why do you assume this? It’s probably true for the quiet “lesser of two evil” voters, but the vocal ones tend to be leftists who recognize the limitations of FPTP elections and are doing other leftist things, and are trying to get others to help make the environment marginally less hostile so they can do leftist things more effectively.
I know because I’m one of those actively leftist “lesser of two evil” voters.
Well, yeah, fair point lol, I definitely have an imagined “type” in mind here and jumped to the assumption that it’s all those who are vocally “lesser of two evils”.
Really I was less making an assumption and more just (inaccurately, as you pointed out) using that as shorthand for the set of voters who vote lesser of two evils, but then go on to do the kinds of shit that allows for the image above. Berate others for daring to demand more than two evils, or encourage trying to find common ground with the increasingly far right as a viable means of progress, and worse.
You’re right, it’s not everyone who talks about the importance of still voting when it’s two bad candidates, and I myself think it’s important to do that. I think it just feels like the folks who are always making the discussion about that idea are also usually the ones doing the other destructive (while condescendingly ~well-intentioned) stuff I was describing. Sounds like you feel the opposite, which I’m willing to chalk up to the nature of having different experiences, idk. Definitely not common enough to use as shorthand apparently, that’s on me.
I don’t think it’s for “daring to demand”, it’s more about the nature, mechanics, and outcome of the demand.
I’m all for developing better alternatives in the background while applying effective pressure on the lesser evil, to establish a foundation to make demands when the time is right and the social apparatus is prepared to enforce those demands.
I’m not at all about protest abstention or pushing longshot third parties. At least a part of the voices pushing for that reek of bad faith actors deliberately trying to cause fractures to give greater evil better odds. Not all of it, but even some of the rest is just parroting psy-op taking points.
I agree just voting isn’t enough, but I think most of the voices that care enough to keep people voting strategically in the face of these fractures care enough to be taking other actions too. The lazy, self-righteous ones don’t care enough to push any strategy at all.