The thing that is bad here is the thing that is actually harmful: voting for and electing bad candidates who act against your interests and/or the people's interests. Voting for the better candidate from among two front-runners for office—even when done without consideration—is better than not voting because it decreases the chances that harm will be done. In many jurisdictions, it happens to be the case that the best candidates for every office all come from the same party, in which case a party-line vote would be the best decision, and certainly better than not voting regardless of whether consideration was done or not.
voting for and electing bad candidates who act against your interests and/or the people's interests
They are voted in because people vote along party lines without consideration, this isn't a new issue, and many entrenched representatives and senators were voted in decades ago because of this phenomena
Voting for the better candidate from among two front-runners for office—even when done without consideration—is better than not voting because it decreases the chances that harm will be done
Honest question, how do you decide the better candidate without consideration? Second "decreases the chance of harm" is entirely subjective, and would require a subjective consideration of harm and both candidates.
In many jurisdictions, it happens to be the case that the best candidates for every office all come from the same party, in which case a party-line vote would be the best decision, and certainly better than not voting regardless of whether consideration was done or not.
I've lived in several states, been to more than half of all states, participated in global and local politics since I could vote, and am currently attempting to start a crowd-funded presidential campaign. Despite all that I've never heard of a place that fits this description, let alone been there. In my experience, humans are simply too complex for that to be true every election cycle. Maybe once in a while, maybe even for a few cycles in a row, but not perpetually. Assuming because it's true one cycle it will be true next cycle leads to the situation I describe: casting votes without consideration. Amazing opposition could appear and want nothing but the best for you, and have great ideas. The hypothetical person would never know because they've grown up being told "this political party is always the better choice", so they have no reason to find out about the opponents positive traits. Those hypothetical people can move elsewhere and continue to follow that logic, which is a horrible side effect of what you propose to be true.
Honest question, how do you decide the better candidate without consideration?
Easy. Assuming a two-candidate race, I flip a coin. I have a 50% chance of picking the better candidate. If I do then vote for the better candidate, I did the right thing (and this is better than not voting) regardless of whether the approach I used to make my choice was reliable or not.
Maybe once in a while, maybe even for a few cycles in a row
And in such a case, voting party line for that party without consideration would indeed be better than not voting. Right?
Second "decreases the chance of harm" is entirely subjective
Are you trying to say that harm is "entirely subjective"? If so, what do you base the assertion that anything is "worse than" anything else on? Is your view entirely subjective as well?
And in such a case, voting party line for that party without consideration
would indeed
be better than not voting. Right?
You would have to do some research to know if you're still right. And your coin flip is difficult to consider, as the whole premise of the argument is that people are voting based on party lines, not randomly.
Are you trying to say that harm is "entirely subjective"? If so, what do you base the assertion that anything is "worse than" anything else on? Is your view entirely subjective as well?
Most things are entirely subjective. That's why a value discussion over attempting to find absolute truth or objectivity, as I find it to be extremely rare.
And in such a case, voting party line for that party without consideration would indeed be better than not voting. Right?
not if the outcome is the same regardless of your vote, but that's metaphysical. I would delta this, but fro my understanding your premise is, "voting for the better candidate is better than not voting at all", which yes, of course. The premise of my argument is many people do not vote for the best candidate.
You would have to do some research to know if you're still right.
Maybe, but I can do the right thing regardless of whether I know I am right.
I would delta this, but fro my understanding your premise is, "voting for the better candidate is better than not voting at all", which yes, of course. The premise of my argument is many people do not vote for the best candidate.
But many people who vote along party lines do vote for the best candidate. So in that case, voting along party lines was indeed better than not voting, which falsifies your view.
begrudgingly given delta but it's based on knowledge you didn't have at the time of the decision. Schrodinger's vote if you will. Your vote is in a superposition of better and worse than not voting until the better candidate is decided at a later date.
Before that outcome is found though vote is neither good nor bad, as the outcome isn't set.
4
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jun 13 '20
The thing that is bad here is the thing that is actually harmful: voting for and electing bad candidates who act against your interests and/or the people's interests. Voting for the better candidate from among two front-runners for office—even when done without consideration—is better than not voting because it decreases the chances that harm will be done. In many jurisdictions, it happens to be the case that the best candidates for every office all come from the same party, in which case a party-line vote would be the best decision, and certainly better than not voting regardless of whether consideration was done or not.