Quit saying "vote your conscience."

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I think part of the problem is unrealistic expectations.

"Voting your ideals" presupposes the existence of ideal politicians to vote for.  People who want to wield power are never ideal.  People who are ideal don't waste their time fooling around with elected office.  

My ideal candidate will never be on any ballot, ever.  I've made peace with this.

So there are two serious candidates in any given election.  Both of 'em suck, but one more so than the other.  You pick the one who sucks least and you don't look back.

[Brad Johnson]

So there are two serious candidates in any given election.  Both of 'em suck, but one more so than the other.  You pick the one who sucks least and you don't look back.

Sad, but unfortunately all too true.

Brad

[Perd Hapley]

Nitpicky attempts at discretization through over-specificity and contextual compartmentalization notwithstanding, it accurately illustrates the futility of "voting your conscience" in a situation where your preferred agent of change has no realistic chance of being in a position to make the change you desire.  

Brad

I see that you understand analogies about as well as AZRedhawk.

The bus isn't crashing, dude. It isn't heading toward a cliff. It is on a rotten road to nowhere, being driven by the people we elect. So all this talk of saving the bus before it all comes to an end frames the question in a way that misleads us.

I think part of the problem is unrealistic expectations.

"Voting your ideals" presupposes the existence of ideal politicians to vote for.  People who want to wield power are never ideal.  People who are ideal don't waste their time fooling around with elected office.  

My ideal candidate will never be on any ballot, ever.  I've made peace with this.

So there are two serious candidates in any given election.  Both of 'em suck, but one more so than the other.  You pick the one who sucks least and you don't look back.

I mostly agree with this. But you must also agree that it is possible for the two realistic candidates to be so seriously flawed that voting for either of them will not, realistically, be any help at all.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I mostly agree with this. But you must also agree that it is possible for the two realistic candidates to be so seriously flawed that voting for either of them will not, realistically, be any help at all.

One of 'em is gonna win no matter what.  Might as well have a say in favor of the least flawed.  Even if neither of them will help at all, it's usually pretty clear that one candidate stands to do more harm.  That's reason enough to vote for the other guy.

[Fitz]

The idea of voting third party isn't to get that person in office, although we'd love that. The idea is to advance the political agenda of that third party. More votes in the national election can translate into more influence, I think. I forget exactly the details, but something good happens with funding for campaigns if, for example, a Libertarian candidate gets 10 percent of the pop. vote.

Anyways, the idea is that (we hope) if a given party sees "Hey, we're losing votes to this third party because of issues X, Y, and Z," that the powers that be will (hopefully) get the hint and attempt to attract those votes in the future.

I'd argue that we've seen this in some cases.

[Tallpine]

The bus is rolling down a steep hill with no brakes.  The only question is who is going to steer.

Eventually we will crash into the side of the feed store in downtown Pagosa Springs.

[AZRedhawk44]

Nope, it'll be a windmill in Palm Springs.

[Tallpine]

Nope, it'll be a windmill in Palm Springs.

I'm not familiar with that song ....

[Brad Johnson]

The bus is rolling down a steep hill with no brakes.  The only question is who is going to steer.

Eventually we will crash into the side of the feed store in downtown Pagosa Springs.

Right after Earl looks around, takes a puff on his dollar cigar, and says, "My, ain't it purty up here...". 

Brad

[Perd Hapley]

One of 'em is gonna win no matter what.  Might as well have a say in favor of the least flawed.  Even if neither of them will help at all, it's usually pretty clear that one candidate stands to do more harm.  

I guess my disagreement is with the idea that the candidate with the slightly better agenda will necessarily do less harm. If you disagree, then go ahead and vote your conscience.

[Balog]

Such short term thinking. My goal is to get the GOP to stop nominating people who are somewhere on the spectrum from retarded to evil. Depriving them of votes is the best way to accomplish that. For a party that claims to understand free markets, the party leaders seem to have a hard time groking that if people don't like your candidate they won't buy him. Perennially clueless restaraunt owners blaming the stupid customers for not eating their sht sandwich.

Besides, the only time the GOP doesn't crap on freedom and set fire to giant piles of money like the Joker in a Batman movie is when the D's have the POTUS and they're the opposition.

[Perd Hapley]

Such short term thinking. My goal is to get the GOP to stop nominating people who are somewhere on the spectrum from retarded to evil.

This. Not voting for Romneys is only one way, among many that should be pursued.

[Tallpine]

... the only time the GOP doesn't crap on freedom and set fire to giant piles of money like the Joker in a Batman movie is when the D's have the POTUS and they're the opposition.

You got that right.

Oh for the days when BJ was screwing around in the WH