• Skua@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    I think you should vote for someone you believe in, rather than voting for someone who is not someone else

    This would be the ideal situation, but for so long as we have first-past-the-post it’s a fundamentally ineffective way to vote. Thanks to Duverger’s law, unless one of the two big parties just so happens to coincide with your views then the best you can do is to vote against whichever of the big two you dislike most. “Big two” here depends on your constituency - it may not be Labour and the Conservatives locally, but it is true that virtually every constituency has at most two realistic options. Labour may not be very good, but if they’re in power it’s probably at minimum going to make this a better place for asylum seekers and trans people (or whoever the Tories would go after next), and Labour’s voting record on the environment really is far better than the Conservatives’ too.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      6 months ago

      Your opinion is that it’s the best you can do. I disagree, because that ignores the medium run.

      It might be a good idea, but it’s not definitely “the best” because reality is more complicated. Politics doesn’t happen exactly once on one day.

      • Donkter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        I agree, but I unfortunately think that’s actually the perspective of anyone who chooses not to vote. Politics doesn’t happen once on one day. But if you haven’t done anything in 4 years the most impactful you’ll be is voting for the lesser of two evils once on election day.

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s the best you can with with your vote on voting day. It doesn’t stop you doing anything else on any other day.