There IS such a thing as voting in "self-defense".

You don't have to like the candidate that you're voting for, you don't have to agree to the majority of his or her platform, you don't have to explicitly justify your position to anyone on demand; if the other, unpalatable political candidates have stances or platform items that put you or your interests and freedoms (or even what may be construed as society's reasonable interests and stability taken as a whole!) at great risk, then it makes sense to vote for that candidate, even though it admittedly may be far from an optimal or preferable political mixture.

If the "other bunch" of politically opinionated people have only disdain and condemnation to offer for their political opponent, who you end up voting for, isn't it then an indictment upon themselves for not running a candidate reasonable or moderate, or compromise-seekkng enough to not force you into a particular political extreme?

#democracy #politics #election

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Voting in self-defense seems an awful lot like trying to defend yourself with an empty water pistol.

The glass may be half empty, or even three quarters empty, but I can think of some worse alternatives; fx. Your opponent smashing your glass on the bar table and glassing your face with it. (Or rather, the political equivalent of this gruesome analogy).