Would you rather

1. 60

   Petra Vlahposted 13 years ago

   Would you rather vote your conscience even if that means throwing your vote away?
   Voting for the lesser evil is NOT a real choice and I refuse to play the game; what about you?

   replyreport
   1. 77

      BDazzlerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I would say if you don't vote your conscience you're giving your vote to someone else.  That's the same as throwing it away.  The lesser evil is still evil.
      
      Enjoying getting to "meet" you, BTW

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Petra Vlahposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         California has two impossible choises both for governor and for congress.
         I can't in good conscience vote for either candidate so my only choice is either NOT to vote or to vote a candidate that has ZERO chances

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            If you wait for a perfect candidate you'll never vote. Jerry Brown is an experienced, solid, well motivated public servant. Barbara Boxer is right more often than not. Carly Fiorina is ill-equipped for high public office.
            
            Another option is to join and support the party that comes closest to your views and work within that party to push your goals and candidates.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Petra Vlahposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I agree that Brown is well intentioned and honest, but he proved inefficient more than once. Barbara Boxer is rarely making an appearance on the floor and as opposed to my other senator (Diane F) she seems to be absent even when she is present.
               Fiorina is so out of question as a senator, I will not even considere her for California congerss.
               Working for either party and trying to change anything will be a waste of time; the system is wrong and I can't fix it since most people will only look for their best interest and care little or nothing for regular people.
               The only time I had no doubt during an election was when I voted for Obama

               replyreport
         2. 77

            BDazzlerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I would vote the zero chance ... the reason being that the vote is only valid if it's honest ... theoretically, the polls, the media etc. could all be wrong and when the votes are counted all the people who thought there was zero chance, voted the way they really felt and there's actually a win.
            
            Of course, I haven't voted in the past several elections.

            replyreport
      2. 68

         Ladybird33posted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I would agree with BDazzler...said perfectly.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      For the first time in my life I absolutely, positively despise both of the major candidates for a particular race. Voting for any of the other 3 contenders isn’t feasible either. What a mess.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      And thank you for your opening post. I will thoroughly read the statements, etc of the three contenders. If I detect one who is good of heart, I will vote for that person and just forget about the previous experience factor and the fact that they have zero chances of winning.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Petra Vlahposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I will do the same, because it is just impossible for me to choose between the proven incompetence of Brown and the money-hungry, power-obsessed Meg Whitman.
         As for congress my choices are no better;  how do I choose between the greed of Fiorina and the inefficiency and laziness of Boxer?
         I am a registered independent and I only vote if I feel the candidate is at least half way decent

         replyreport
   4. 61

      KFlippinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Voting for the Lesser Evil is pretty much what many Americans or any other disillusioned and pragmatic citizen of any other country perceives as their choice in casting a vote -- not knew news probably for a couple hundred years in one political race or another.
      
      What is really pathetic is when someone thinks voting for an obvious loon (I'm thinking of that Florida? idiot? an utter dolt who makes you wonder at the electorate that ever gave him a voice) over a normal person is taking the high road (haha, purely jest, but not in their brain) on some policy issue -- shows a clear lack of integrity -- on the part of the voter, they'd rather vote for someone with zero integrity or respect among their peers, who is a guaranteed 'vote' in Congress for something they think is important (to a gimmeemeemee bill) -- with utter disregard for the damage they will do both to the office and their district and their country in the long run.  Just IMHO. 
      
      PS -- and I consider Boxer a well-packaged and well-backed (financially and otherwise) 'loon' actually, detest the woman.  Fiorina is the clear choice, and next time around, vote her out if she screws up, but she can't possibly be an ill-choice for bankrupt California, and Boxer is old news, old hat, washed up and an embarrassment to the USA -- change the laundry.

      replyreport
2. 67

   Jed Fisherposted 13 years ago

   I always vote my conscience, despite living in a state where the elections are always lopsided. And lucky for me, the overwhelming majority agrees with me, which is part of the reason I choose to live here. But I noticed that the greater number of votes cast for the loser, the more the loser's ideas are respected and occasionally supported, after the election, by the winner.

   replyreport
3. 61

   JayDeckposted 13 years ago

   Conscience, without a doubt. If we all do it, eventually we will make a difference.

   replyreport