Why am I forced to vote for a canidate I do not trust?
So I admit I voted for Bernie in the primaries and now that he has gone against everything he says I sometimes stay up at night because I actually believed him. My family is very conservative and my friends are very liberal but I have never really been other. Even at 26 I stay undecided. Not because I'm an idiot like most media would paint me out to be. But because, especially in this election, I can not stand to look either canidate in the eye. Trump is my family's obvious choice yet when I try to read his expressions and when I look up his policies all I see is future backstabbing and lies. And as much as I would love to see a woman president, I can not morally vote for someone I have called the worst secretary of state in history. And no not because of the emails. Anyone who is shocked by corruption is an idiot. I mean her allowing North Korea to attack South Korean ships and her allowing Saudi Arabia to stab us in the back over and over again. I was going to vote libertarian, as I do believe in personal freedom. But the more I look into the party, the more I see it's just another branch of religious nuts trying to dictate what freedom means. And the green party, while it may look good at first glance, is no better. At this point, since everyone is telling me it's unpatriotic to not vote even if I don't like any of the four canidates, I'm thinking of just writing down love on the ballot and seeing who follows me. So tell me, who can be called the true moral canidate?
- Anonymous4 years agoFavorite Answer
Do I pick the candidate I dislike, don't trust, and don't agree with or the other candidate, who I don't like, don't trust, and don't agree with?
You pretty much just have to choose the candidate you think will screw stuff up less.
- StooLv 74 years ago
How about listen to what Bernie is telling you now then? First, you're naive as hell to assume he ever really had a chance - his core base is no larger than Trump's base of idiots. Voting anything else other than Hillary in a swing state is voting for Trump, who is authentically dangerous. If you live in a safe R or D state, do what you will I guess, but if you're even vaguely close, Bernie's already told you the answer - vote Hillary and work to keep her on point.
- Julia GLv 64 years ago
Politicians have to be two-faced because they have to fund their campaigns (which is why we need less money in politics and shorter campaigns) so it's ALWAYS two candidates you don't like and/or trust. Just be smart when considering a racist, sexist with white supremacist ties vs politics as usual.Source(s): Washington Post
- DRLv 64 years ago
Lack of change results from almost everyone either not voting or voting for Democrat or Republican mainstream candidates. Why do we just jump back and forth, voting one or the other into office? By now it's clear that that won't change anything.
Most voters would not vote for a candidate who had been convicted of bribery while in public office. It wouldn't matter how "electable" he/she is or what his/her policy positions are. So why vote for any candidate who accepts legal bribes in the form of special interest money?
You are right to not trust either Hillary nor Donald.
Public discussion about campaign finance usually has the unspoken assumption that voters won't consider a candidate who does not have tons of advertising and endorsements. That does not have to be true, especially because voters can use Google to easily learn about all the available candidates, and give them equal consideration. Granted, this requires people without Internet-connected devices to go find a way to access the Web. It also requires people to figure out what to type into the Google search box (something like "Presidential candidates"?), and how to dig through the results. My opinion is that it's reasonable to demand that effort of anyone who will bother to vote; people who can't be bothered to look at the full range of choices should not vote.
Why do you feel forced to vote for only Clinton or Trump?
You don't have to wait for anyone to fix the campaign finance system. You can consider candidates without special interests backing them. And you can refuse to vote for any candidate who accepts that kind of backing. That takes the power from the source of the money, bypassing the need for reform (and the lobbyists who would stop that reform because their jobs would be threatened).
It does not matter which candidate, because that candidate will not win the election this time around. It's okay to vote for a goofball or crackpot. I would prefer to vote for a random minor party candidate I don't believe in, rather than give consent to my abuse by voting for a bought candidate.
If more people start protest-voting for those minor party weirdos you see on ballots, then sensible independent candidates will notice that and try running in various elections. We can vote for those people. As a nice bonus, this will pressure the two main political parties to adapt to voter preferences more than big campaign donors would like.
That third party strategy has a risk of splitting the liberal vote between two candidates (as happened with Ralph Nader in 2000) or the conservative vote between two candidates (as happened with Ross Perot in 1992). The best outsider candidate would be a non-weird centrist who can steal votes equally from both parties; if that centrist belonged to a party, the party would have to refuse all special interest money.
For me, the most frustrating aspect of this is how easily voters could defeat the legalized corruption of campaign finance, if voters acted collectively across party lines. Voters can look at less publicized candidates. Voters can reject immediately any candidate who takes any form of influence buying. Voters can support candidates who publicly warn that they will give no beneficial treatment to donors of PACs that independently advertise on their behalf. By doing those things, voters could render that influence money powerless.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous4 years ago
You have a problem, you do not believe in democracy. Your second problem is you think; your families personal choice means something, you say you are for Sanders (socialist), you say you are undecided, maybe a libertarian, maybe not. So many people maybe even 15% of the population describe themselves as some aspect of liberal or conservative such as evangelical or progressive, which is really horseshit in house fighting of both republican and democratic party , nothing more. To believe in Democracy is to accept both without the radical, zealot side of both.