The Lesser of Two Evils

If you vote for the lesser of two evils, do you elect people you actually want?

Thumbs up if you think that people elected as the lesser of two evils has the mandate of the people.

Thumbs down if you think that people elected as the lesser of two evils do not represent the will of the people.

It seems to me that voting for the lesser of two evils is an endorsement of evil.

Originally posted by Eladar
If you vote for the lesser of two evils, do you elect people you actually want?

Thumbs up if you think that people elected as the lesser of two evils has the mandate of the people.

Thumbs down if you think that people elected as the lesser of two evils do not represent the will of the people.

It seems to me that voting for the lesser of two evils is an endorsement of evil.

2008 we had to pick which toilet we would drink out of. I didn't care who won.
2012 we had a clear choice and the stupidity of the American voter was clearly demonstrated.
I stopped believing in democracy a long time ago, allowing people to vote just because they are 18 and can breathe is idiotic.
(And please don't say "derhhhh it's not a democracy it's a republic durhhh" )

These people can vote.
YouTube

How's that make you feel?

The solution would be to have more than 2 parties!

Originally posted by invigorate
The solution would be to have more than 2 parties!

Been tried a number of times, a 3rd party is just a fly in the ointment.
Remember the "Peace And Liberty" party in the late 60's?
Teddy Roosevelt tried it with the Bullmoose party, it got him nowhere.
Don't forget Ralph Nader.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Been tried a number of times, a 3rd party is just a fly in the ointment.
Remember the "Peace And Liberty" party in the late 60's?
Teddy Roosevelt tried it with the Bullmoose party, it got him nowhere.
Don't forget Ralph Nader.

It's been successfully tried a great number of times using different electoral systems.

Originally posted by Eladar
If you vote for the lesser of two evils, do you elect people you actually want?

Thumbs up if you think that people elected as the lesser of two evils has the mandate of the people.

Thumbs down if you think that people elected as the lesser of two evils do not represent the will of the people.

It seems to me that voting for the lesser of two evils is an endorsement of evil.

Here in Africa, we elect leaders into 'power'. In other words, once elected in, they do what they like - which usually consists of trying to manipulate the next election in their favour, and stealing as much money as they can in case plan A fails.
More advanced democracies have a lot more checks and balances and a lot more input from the people apart from elections. They elect officials 'into office' not 'into power'. Elections should be about general policy decisions not about personalities.

I saw a recent talk where the speaker challenged the audience to name the prime minister of Switzerland. Any prime minister from its history. Nobody could. He said that that shows that their system is not about personalities.

Sadly the US seems to have a situation where there is a lot of input to government between elections but it is input from lobbyists which means it represents money not people.

I am also of the opinion that democracy has its limits. It should not be used in many situations such as human rights. That is where a constitution comes in. For example issues like gay marriage which centre around rights issues of a minority should never be settled democratically. The same applies to any question that affects a minority - the majority should not get to vote on it. I see this as one of the failings of Swiss democracy in that they have very strict immigration policies decided on democratically when it should be address as a human rights issue.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's been successfully tried a great number of times using different electoral systems.

Oh please tell me when a 3rd party candidate won and became president.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Oh please tell me when a 3rd party candidate won and became president.

I wasn't talking about the US.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I wasn't talking about the US.

Ohhhhh...you mean like Germany in the early 30's?
When Hitler came to power?
Yeah that worked pretty well.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Ohhhhh...you mean like Germany in the early 30's?
When Hitler came to power?
Yeah that worked pretty well.

Hitler never had a majority in parliament - he seized power in a coup. Aside from that, what is your point? Are you suggesting that many-party systems inevitably end up producing mad dictators?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Here in Africa, we elect leaders into 'power'. In other words, once elected in, they do what they like - which usually consists of trying to manipulate the next election in their favour, and stealing as much money as they can in case plan A fails.
More advanced democracies have a lot more checks and balances and a lot more input from the people apart fro ...[text shortened]... ot 'into power'. Elections should be about general policy decisions not about personalities.

Don't kid yourself, things are the same all over.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Hitler never had a majority in parliament - he seized power in a coup. Aside from that, what is your point? Are you suggesting that many-party systems inevitably end up producing mad dictators?

No, he was elected on a minority in parliament and became Chancellor. The Reichstag fire gave him the excuse later to assume emergency powers.
I'm saying that many-party systems disintegrate into petty squabbling where no one is in clear control and a fruitcake like Hitler can gain control with a minority of the population behind him.
I'm not wild about the two party system, but at least it would take half the population to be insane and elect a Hitler and keep him in power.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
No, he was elected on a minority in parliament and became Chancellor. The Reichstag fire gave him the excuse later to assume emergency powers.

Yes, Hitler used the Reichstag fire as an excuse to stage his coup (the Enabling Act of 1933).

I'm saying that many-party systems disintegrate into petty squabbling where no one is in clear control and a fruitcake like Hitler can gain control with a minority of the population behind him.

Then how do so many many-party systems produce stable democracies?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, Hitler used the Reichstag fire as an excuse to stage his coup (the Enabling Act of 1933).

Did you want to discuss history or multi-party systems?

Yes change the subject.
Anyway it doesn't matter because as has been pointed out, America DOES have a more than 2 party system, it's just that there's never been a 3rd party or more that has captured the public enough to make a difference.

Originally posted by invigorate
The solution would be to have more than 2 parties!

There are more than 2 parties, but the 2 big ones hold all the power and
the press likes it that way...though the press tends to favor one of the two
over the other.
Kelly