Why Voting The Lesser of Two Evils Always FailsSubmitted by The Libertybelle on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 02:04
This is my arguement to those who like Paul but insist that he can't win and are holding their nose and voting for Romney (This is a first draft, so it's rough and needs editing...)
Why Voting Pragmatically Always Fails and Destroys a Free Country(AKA voting for the lesser of the two evils)
Many of us have heard the saying, 'when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil." And in spite of this people still feel compelled to abstain from voting for the person they would rather support and vote for the one the have come to believe (or have been told over and over again) can win and unseat the candidate they so despise. They may even despise the one for whom they vote, just not as deeply at incumbent.
And so, once they have settled, they hold on to a dreamlike hope that their chosen winner will somehow become someone else, and do 'good' to turn things around, when they get into office...that they will undo all the bad, or at the very least be not as bad, as the incumbent. These same people frequently bemoan the fact that" there is no one to vote for". And I ask, how can it be otherwise? You see the reason "we have no one to vote for" is really quite obvious when you stop to think about it.
Lets imagine that you support the platform of a good, principled candidate, Candidate A, who happens to be running for office for the first time. They typically are the underdog and underfunded and poll low when compared to other better known, but marginal candidates running for the same office including an incumbent known for corruption that you feel must be gotten out of office. Now in your fervor to oust the rascal incumbent, you review the slate and, although you support candidate A, you decide to vote for candidate B, simply because you believe he can win against the incumbent, not that you agree with or are especially enamored with many of their policies or their record. You believe you are being pragmatic, sensible and realistic, as the most important issue is to kick the rascal out, right?
WRONG! The unintended and oft times unseen consequences of this act send this message to the Candidate A, whom you actually supported. You see, candidates see the election as the ultimate poll and can only judge the support for their platform by the votes they receive. Now if they realize that even those whom they believed supported them chose NOT to vote for them, they will see this with dismay and will not RUN AGAIN. Why should they, you just told them not to!
This also sends a message to others of like mind, that there is no support for these good policies and principles that were represented by Candidate A, and they too will not choose to run. So, by choosing pragmatism over principles, for short term gain, you not only discourage Candidate A from running in the future, you discourage all other like minded potential candidates from running too, and so,over time, you diminish the pool of principled candidates until there are none left and the only choice you have is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
In this manner you have chosen to vote for and create a government run by evil people. This is the unintended consequence of falling to the siren's song of voting pragmatism over principles. It will never get better in America until we realize this trap and STOP and STAND LIKE A ROCK ON PRINCIPLES , just as Jefferson admonished us 250 years ago.