Hey, just a heads up, those write ins and third party votes get counted and when parties are planning their platforms they look at how many third party votes they could pick up.
Is it morally correct to effectively give option 2 (MORE genocide) half a vote just so that I can voice my objections to the status quo? I’m not thrilled with the idea of asking other people to die so that I can avoid voting for an imperfect candidate.
No. I’m confused, what country do you live in that has half-votes? I’ve never heard of that.
You should give 100% of your vote (votes?) to the non-genocide option. Do not give any percentage of your vote to either pro-genocide option. This isn’t that complicated.
Yeah it just sounds so simple. Almost misleadingly so!
And I don’t believe you need the effective half vote thing explained to you.
I plan to use my vote to actually reduce and/or prevent genocide and other bad things as much as I can. Like real effects in the real world. If I vote for a third party candidate that stands on firmer moral ground (and who will never have to actually make those decisions), and that choice helps in any small way to get Trump elected, then there are many more people who will suffer and die. It is for those people that I can step outside the realm of idealism and vote for the lesser evil. Because like I saw in another comment, choosing the lesser evil does mean less evil in the world.
I don’t have to be happy about it or excited to do it. But when looking at the practical cause and effect of the voting choices, I only see one ethical option for myself.
You aren’t reducing or preventing genocide by voting for someone in the process of supporting a genocide.
If your conscience tells you that it’s acceptable to support a side that’s committing genocide because it’s enemies do it too, then there’s not much I can say except that my original point stands: my Russian bosses should give me a raise or give up on this whole thing because convincing Americans to oppose genocide is an exercise in futility.
Nothing changes through compliance. If people don’t oppose it, it won’t ever stop. You know that as well as I do.
The best use of your vote in terms of stopping genocide would be to vote for someone who doesn’t support genocide.
I’m looking at this imaginary November ballot and the choices are:
I can advocate, vote for better people in primaries, and stuff like that, but I cannot change the choices on the ballot.
Hey, just a heads up, those write ins and third party votes get counted and when parties are planning their platforms they look at how many third party votes they could pick up.
Good thing option 3 exists so you have an option to oppose genocide without changing what’s on the ballot.
Is it morally correct to effectively give option 2 (MORE genocide) half a vote just so that I can voice my objections to the status quo? I’m not thrilled with the idea of asking other people to die so that I can avoid voting for an imperfect candidate.
No. I’m confused, what country do you live in that has half-votes? I’ve never heard of that.
You should give 100% of your vote (votes?) to the non-genocide option. Do not give any percentage of your vote to either pro-genocide option. This isn’t that complicated.
Yeah it just sounds so simple. Almost misleadingly so!
And I don’t believe you need the effective half vote thing explained to you.
I plan to use my vote to actually reduce and/or prevent genocide and other bad things as much as I can. Like real effects in the real world. If I vote for a third party candidate that stands on firmer moral ground (and who will never have to actually make those decisions), and that choice helps in any small way to get Trump elected, then there are many more people who will suffer and die. It is for those people that I can step outside the realm of idealism and vote for the lesser evil. Because like I saw in another comment, choosing the lesser evil does mean less evil in the world.
I don’t have to be happy about it or excited to do it. But when looking at the practical cause and effect of the voting choices, I only see one ethical option for myself.
You aren’t reducing or preventing genocide by voting for someone in the process of supporting a genocide.
If your conscience tells you that it’s acceptable to support a side that’s committing genocide because it’s enemies do it too, then there’s not much I can say except that my original point stands: my Russian bosses should give me a raise or give up on this whole thing because convincing Americans to oppose genocide is an exercise in futility.
Nothing changes through compliance. If people don’t oppose it, it won’t ever stop. You know that as well as I do.
You’re disinformationing wrong
Meaning I’m providing correct information?