The Pennsylvania Democrat recalled his time serving as a Hillary Clinton surrogate in 2016, even after he supported Bernie Sanders in the primary.

  • Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you don’t want either one to win, there is no way for you to legally make that happen.

    So if you accept that is true, and you have a preference among the two parties, that is where pragmatism suggests voting against the greater evil.

    But if you honestly have little to no preference, then you won’t care about the so-called consequences of voting third party, and can do whatever.

    I mean obviously you can always do whatever you want. This is just the game theory you’re thinking that means we need to change our voting system before the two-party lock-in would even start to loosen.

    • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pragmatism would suggest I spend my efforts being politically active in other ways rather than dedicate it to a bipartisan death spiral. I’m active on the labor, municipal, and environmental front, and none of it is online.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That sounds awesome!

        I was just talking about the vote decision in the booth though. Actually helping change along is arguably even more important than voting in the first place, because each individual involved has a larger effect, and one that they care about much more than choosing the lesser evil.