MILWAUKEE — Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee Mike ter Maat is campaigning in Wisconsin this week, but why bother? The State is expected to be won by
Is it ethical to cast a third party vote that lets the least ethical candidate with the election? It seems to me that such a decision undermines the point of ethics. Sometimes a compromise is the most ethical thing to do.
Is it ethical to cast a third party vote that lets the least ethical candidate with the election? It seems to me that such a decision undermines the point of ethics. Sometimes a compromise is the most ethical thing to do.
Voting is an expression of personal values, and supporting a third-party candidate is a way to advocate for those values, even if the candidate doesn’t have a great chance of winning.
Your argument that voting third-party may lead to the least ethical candidate winning, assumes that people should always choose the lesser of two evils, which perpetuates a system that doesn’t align with their beliefs.
I personally think that in the long run, continually compromising on ethics by voting for one of the two major parties will delay development of alternatives that represent what I believe in.
By voting third-party, I’m contributing to a broader political conversation that challenges the status quo and pushes for meaningful change. And I am voting for what I believe in. Which, we as Americans, have the right to do. Even if it’s not the candidate you wish I were voting for.
So no, I won’t be compromising.
UNLESS a socialist party gets on my ballot. Then I’d switch from Green to Socialist.
Your argument that voting third-party may lead to the least ethical candidate winning, assumes that people should always choose the lesser of two evils,
No one buys this. Their argument assumes outcomes matter and that’s literally all it assumes.
All your argument assumes is that the outcome is not something anyone can force you to care about as it is not your problem. Which is a garbage lie.
I, and many others, buy this. Which is why the democratic party, and Lemmy, is so mad about third parties. Obviously enough people “buy” it that you all are worried about “spoilers.”
I respect your right to your opinion, but I disagree with it.
Is it ethical to cast a third party vote that lets the least ethical candidate with the election? It seems to me that such a decision undermines the point of ethics. Sometimes a compromise is the most ethical thing to do.
Voting is an expression of personal values, and supporting a third-party candidate is a way to advocate for those values, even if the candidate doesn’t have a great chance of winning.
Your argument that voting third-party may lead to the least ethical candidate winning, assumes that people should always choose the lesser of two evils, which perpetuates a system that doesn’t align with their beliefs.
I personally think that in the long run, continually compromising on ethics by voting for one of the two major parties will delay development of alternatives that represent what I believe in.
By voting third-party, I’m contributing to a broader political conversation that challenges the status quo and pushes for meaningful change. And I am voting for what I believe in. Which, we as Americans, have the right to do. Even if it’s not the candidate you wish I were voting for.
So no, I won’t be compromising.
UNLESS a socialist party gets on my ballot. Then I’d switch from Green to Socialist.
Is it really? Or is it simply a legal mechanism by which we choose who rules over us?
No one buys this. Their argument assumes outcomes matter and that’s literally all it assumes.
All your argument assumes is that the outcome is not something anyone can force you to care about as it is not your problem. Which is a garbage lie.
I, and many others, buy this. Which is why the democratic party, and Lemmy, is so mad about third parties. Obviously enough people “buy” it that you all are worried about “spoilers.”
I respect your right to your opinion, but I disagree with it.