I vote for people who share my values. I do not vote for people who are against my values. As no politicians share my values, and as I do not believe in lesser-evilism, I haven't voted in a long time.
Failure to vote, is not voting-for-no one. It is spliting your vote 50/50.
If you're happy with that then by all means, don't vote.
But please then don't complain about taxes, or depending, or policy, or whatever. If you think its all the same, then what's the point of complaining.
Personally, I don't think you'll ever find a politician who shares your exact set of values, much less a party. That's OK. For me, one party represents more of my values than the other. When push comes to shove I'd be happier with more than less.
i don't do this. while it's a romantic ideal to "not believe in lesser-evilism", it doesn't help anyone. someone is going to be elected, with or without your voluntary participation.
so rather than vote (or not) for the "lesser evil", i take the approach to objectively look at the probability of benefit to my own situation, period. don't anthropomorphize politicians (or larry ellison).
adjusting for lying, external factors, etc., maximize for your own objective, concrete, benefit. relative "evil"-ness is not a valid factor. for once being selfish is exactly the right thing to do - if everyone did this, then it would yield the best result for the greatest number of people.
if you feel like being romantic or heroic, then look at it as you are selecting for things that best benefit your "values" (as if that word has anything to do with politics) and therefore automatically benefit like minded other folks (who are obviously the "good" ones then) too.
> objectively look at the probability of benefit to my own situation, period.
> for once being selfish is exactly the right thing to do - if everyone did this, then it would yield the best result for the greatest number of people.
This assumes a sufficient number of people are capable of _accurately_ assessing what is in their best interest. To some, this might sound as romantic as not believing in lesser-evilism.
welp, that's sort of the core bug in democracy then, isn't it?
until someone comes up with a better way, it's a "can't fix" - all known alternatives are far worse.
>> if everyone did this, then it would yield the best result for the greatest number of people
> To some, this might sound as romantic ...
ah, but it's not as romantic as it sounds because i said "if", and it's true that's a big "if". so if not everybody was able to accurately decide what's good for them, or simply voted intentionally against their self interest (sadly fairly common), then you just won't get the best theoretical outcome. i.e. it will suck monkey balls. i.e. the current situation. we can't fix the former (unable to...) but perhaps we can fix the later (intentionally votes against their self-interest).
and you are still maximizing your own chances. it's still at least marginally better than lesser-evilism or abstinence.
If you're happy with that then by all means, don't vote.
But please then don't complain about taxes, or depending, or policy, or whatever. If you think its all the same, then what's the point of complaining.
Personally, I don't think you'll ever find a politician who shares your exact set of values, much less a party. That's OK. For me, one party represents more of my values than the other. When push comes to shove I'd be happier with more than less.