Voting for fascism is never the right choice. Even in a two-party system, everyone still has the option to not vote for either Kang or Kodos. “Throw your vote away” is always a valid electoral choice, and perhaps in some cases, the only morally defensible one. We even happen to have a still marginally viable third party, and even if all your vote is doing is keeping that third choice barely alive on the margins, that has its own form of validity too.
Strategic voting is the opposite of strategic. It’s a short-term, single-election tactic that will result in a strategic collapse in the long term. You do not ever have to vote for one party to prevent the other party from getting in. That is not your responsibility, and if you do that, it’s not going to ever get better. You are sacrificing the future for the present, and the present is fleeting but the future is forever. We have to think longer term, or we will have absolutely no recourse when both of the top choices end up being unconscionable.
If you think this is a Kang and Kodos situation you are legitimately insane. On one side you have a PhD level economist (Oxon) who is former Governor of the National Banks of both Canada and England, and on the other you have a convoy supporting career politician who has been playing partisan gadfly since he was an undergraduate at University of Calgary.
Your quickness to bring in " throw away your vote" as aegitimate strategy screams of trolling.
DrBob@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Well your realpolitik option is a supersized portion with Poilievre. Until we get proportional representation we are all jadtage.
cecilkorik@piefed.ca 1 day ago
Voting for fascism is never the right choice. Even in a two-party system, everyone still has the option to not vote for either Kang or Kodos. “Throw your vote away” is always a valid electoral choice, and perhaps in some cases, the only morally defensible one. We even happen to have a still marginally viable third party, and even if all your vote is doing is keeping that third choice barely alive on the margins, that has its own form of validity too.
Strategic voting is the opposite of strategic. It’s a short-term, single-election tactic that will result in a strategic collapse in the long term. You do not ever have to vote for one party to prevent the other party from getting in. That is not your responsibility, and if you do that, it’s not going to ever get better. You are sacrificing the future for the present, and the present is fleeting but the future is forever. We have to think longer term, or we will have absolutely no recourse when both of the top choices end up being unconscionable.
DrBob@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
If you think this is a Kang and Kodos situation you are legitimately insane. On one side you have a PhD level economist (Oxon) who is former Governor of the National Banks of both Canada and England, and on the other you have a convoy supporting career politician who has been playing partisan gadfly since he was an undergraduate at University of Calgary.
Your quickness to bring in " throw away your vote" as aegitimate strategy screams of trolling.