catapult magazine

Does any one of the democratic candidates stand a chance of unseating President Bush? Please feel free to expound.

I’d argue that’s situational ethics.

My point is that if a person feels strongly about a candidate, it’s legitimate, not to mention a right, to vote in any legal fashion they see fit in a primary and/or general election. If that means attempting to strategize with their vote, so be it. What you’re actually judging are the thought processes behind someone’s voting record. I guess I have myself to thank for bringing on those comments, because I was the first person to clue you all in on this practice. Dumb me.

I’m not sure why you insist on making the idea of strategizing with one’s vote(s) as being mutually exclusive of taking the election of a leader seriously. My experience has been that it’s the strongly-political people who even think of doing this. They aren’t political geeks playing a game with candidates as their pawns. They feel more strongly about who they want as a leader than the majority of Americans and are more clued in to the political process, not to mention more aware of their rights as voters.

Point is: it’s not right to make our perspectives mutually exclusive. They’re not. To insist they are is to claim to know the minds and hearts of voters across America.

you’re right, it is situational ethics. i might be able to argue that situational ethics aren’t always bad (and therefore not a trump argument), but i don’t have the time today.

i’m probably not articulating myself very well. you are also correct in pointing out that those most concerned with who is elected are engaged in this kind of strategy. i’m trying to say, though, that strategic voting is undemocratic by nature.

this includes voting the old “lesser-of-two-evils” type. i think it’s a failure of the system when individuals are not able to vote for the candidate they feel is most qualified for the job and, consequently, when their votes are made disingenuously.

perhaps i will post more in this thread when we get to canada, but for now i’ll finish with a nugget of wisdom from the simpsons:

i didn’t say you [i:84f464fad0]couldn’t[/i:84f464fad0] deep fry your shirt, i said you [i:84f464fad0]shouldn’t[/i:84f464fad0] deep fry your shirt.

In the recent Canadian elections, there was a lot of discussion about strategic voting, particularly voting for the Liberals so that the Conservatives wouldn’t win. In Toronto, particularly in our riding in Toronto, the NDP looked set to take over from some long time liberals. They didn’t, and a lot of people blamed strategic voting.

While some people may be fine with strategic voting, I think my problem with it is that it doesn’t promote change. It promotes paranoia. Although, the more I think about it is voting against someone better than voting for someone? I don’t know.

(This really is Blisster – not Henry as in prior posts).