• Nevoic
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I understand your sentiment, but I’m curious if you’ll actually commit to the principle you are espousing. Would you actually vote for a candidate that wants to bomb “only” 6 billion people over 7 billion, instead of “throwing away” your vote for someone who doesn’t want to nuke the planet?

    • conditional_soup
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I came back to say that your assertion about a two party system never arriving at a “too extreme” position is 100% correct. That’s why it needs to be done away with.

    • conditional_soup
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      That’s a hard thing to answer for me, because it turns into looping arguments about ethics vs game theory. In practical terms, I know that other voters will avoid choosing the third party candidate, so the obvious choice is then re-apply my selection filter to the one of the two likely candidates that kills fewer people. In pure ethical terms, the obvious choice is to vote for the candidate that wants to kill nobody and then spend the rest of my life standing on the side of a road in the nuclear wastes ranting about how other people are bastards. I’ve been on both sides. In the moment, I choose pragmatism.

      But really, the best thing to do is to try and reform our election system. I actually just signed up with CARCV.org before I hopped on here. When I have more time, I’ll look at what I need to do to volunteer instead of just signing a petition and joining a mailing list.