100% true 4 years ago, 100% true now
Jeff Atwood @codinghorror
30 Sep 2020
"Citizens who vote for third-party candidates, write-in candidates, or nobody aren’t voting their conscience, they are voting their ego, unable to accept that a system they find personally disheartening actually applies to them." medium.com/@cshirky/theres-n…
1
4
It’s people who want to enforce their will on everyone unable to accept that their crappy system doesn’t have to apply to others.
1
1
Not sure what you’re trying to say. That the (stupid, crazy and undemocratic) two-party system doesn’t apply to some US citizens right now?
1
It does apply. But you can also refuse to allow it to apply. It’s a man made construction, not a law of nature. When people protest, they also make that choice, they don’t want it to apply to them. Slavery was a system that applied to everyone yet people said no.
1
The point of the article is that trying to protest it by not participating, especially in a situation like these, is just a sure way of things making worse for yourself. It doesn’t improve anything, or prove a point, or benefit anyone in any way.
1
Sometimes enough is enough. The system works until people participate in the system. If the system is no longer perceived as just and working for the people, when is the time to get out?
1
Replying to @vkornov
Definitely not when electing one of the options means endangering democracy itself

Oct 1, 2020 · 8:27 AM UTC

1
Replying to @stilkov
There is never a good time to "leave" the system if the system actively resists that. You are talking from the point of view of the person who is part of the system. It's like telling depressed person to cheer up; it's you who do not understand, not them.
1
No, I do not understand (unless you’re suggesting those non-voters act irrationally because of a mental health problem). Rationally, I would understand trying to change the system by not participating when both options are equally bad, as usual, but they very clearly are not.
1
more replies