Posts
In response to Tim Goode’s (Voice, Nov. 9) belief that a vote for a third party candidate is a “wasted” vote, consider this: Goode would have us all believe that voting for the lesser of two evils is the smarter, more practical choice.
My contention is that continuously voting for inferior and/or incompetent (yet popular) candidates virtually guarantees that the existing broken system will still be in place when my children inherit it.
By voting our conscience, regardless of party affiliation, we help in a small way to change that system. Perhaps if everyone in agreement with Libertarian views were to vote their opinion, rather than for whom they expect will win, those people would be noticed. These voters of conscience would in turn be noticed by others, including the media, and within a few election cycles we could actually effect change. To steal a phrase, only a fool would do the same thing over and over and expect different results. Will it work? Heck if I know.
We haven’t tried it yet. Is this how the framers of our Constitution intended the process to work? You betcha.
Nick Castelucci
Nov 17, 2010
Lesser Evil Voting Guarantees a Broken System
From a letter to the editor of the South Bend Tribune:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Nick, how's about focusing less on trying to get the "right" people into power and more on trying to decentralize influence through handicapping the rivalry between the two major parties and enabling Local Third (LT) parties to raise our democracy. LT parties would specialize in contesting winnable local parties and otherwise engaging in civil issue advocacy, which would include voting strategically together in less local elections.
It's something that could be acheived without wishful thinking that following one's conscience in voting in a First-Past-the-Post election will somehow make a difference.
Post a Comment