If you guarantee your vote to someone, they will lose any incentive to act for your benefit. It’s really that simple. And if genocide is not a bridge too far for you, God help you, because obviously there’s no limit to what you’ll put up with.
The idea is that you vote for the most pragmatic option at every election. No vote should be guaranteed, but at the same time it’s still your civic duty to make a choice as a voter.
That’s how democracies work, the electorate needs to be active and involved every election. Therefore, it is the civic duty of every citizen to participate in the system and cast their vote. You don’t have to “guarantee” your vote, but you should still vote on what you think is the best choice every time you get.
Anything to not have to grapple with the idea that just voting blue is not enough, huh? And are we going to pretend that Biden didn’t gleeflully pour billions into the genocide?
Is it really that uncomfortable to engage with the idea? This is just an online forum, there is no possible negative consequence to whatever you write. Humor me, try to refute the idea that voting for a politician purely based on the actions of their opponent disincentivizes the politician to do anything for your benefit. Note that I’m not mentioning genocide, morality, blue, green, red or yellow or whatever. As far as I’m concerned this is about a fictional country called Fakeland with two parties.
If you guarantee your vote to a politician, what incentive do they have to give even a single shit about your standards of living?
How do you guarantee a vote? It’s not like you’re telling the politician ahead of time.
You can’t really say you’re against genocide if you knowingly take no action against the candidate that says he wants to glass Gaza so he can build a nice resort there.
If you guarantee your vote to someone, they will lose any incentive to act for your benefit. It’s really that simple. And if genocide is not a bridge too far for you, God help you, because obviously there’s no limit to what you’ll put up with.
The idea is that you vote for the most pragmatic option at every election. No vote should be guaranteed, but at the same time it’s still your civic duty to make a choice as a voter.
I understand the idea. I’m pointing out the big flaw in that idea. And I disagree that it’s your civic duty to “just vote”.
That’s how democracies work, the electorate needs to be active and involved every election. Therefore, it is the civic duty of every citizen to participate in the system and cast their vote. You don’t have to “guarantee” your vote, but you should still vote on what you think is the best choice every time you get.
Good thing Trump ended the genocide!
Anything to not have to grapple with the idea that just voting blue is not enough, huh? And are we going to pretend that Biden didn’t gleeflully pour billions into the genocide?
Yes, don’t vote at all. Better to have more genocide but having the moral high ground of not having voted for less.
Is it really that uncomfortable to engage with the idea? This is just an online forum, there is no possible negative consequence to whatever you write. Humor me, try to refute the idea that voting for a politician purely based on the actions of their opponent disincentivizes the politician to do anything for your benefit. Note that I’m not mentioning genocide, morality, blue, green, red or yellow or whatever. As far as I’m concerned this is about a fictional country called Fakeland with two parties.
If you guarantee your vote to a politician, what incentive do they have to give even a single shit about your standards of living?
How do you guarantee a vote? It’s not like you’re telling the politician ahead of time.
You can’t really say you’re against genocide if you knowingly take no action against the candidate that says he wants to glass Gaza so he can build a nice resort there.