what is the least evil?

[TommyTooter]

to continually choose the lesser of two evils only perpetuates the evil. look back at what those two parties and the military-industrial complex running them have done to the world in the past hundred years. look at what we face if we allow it to continue.



there will be no significant change until the people can elect people who will represent them and their best interest. nobody representing either party is going to do that. already nobody gets more votes than anybody else. some local elections and primaries have turnouts of less than 20%.



if you want to see a change, you want to see that silent majority re-enfranchise themselves and cast their ballots everywhere else but to republicans and democrats.

 

[TommyTooter]

ok, a few people look at this every day, but nobody has commented. i think i see why. i didn't ask any questions -- just stated my opinion about the upcoming election.



in the artist/activist community, there is a terrific amount of debate over this idea of voting for the least evil in choosing between republicans or democrats. there are basically three camps. one says that the major parties are controllable and we just have to find the right candidates who will represent their constituencies rather than the corporatist oligarchy.



i'm in the camp that says we need fresh blood and other parties to gain some voice in our government. i've also been a proponent of the idea that if you don't vote, you can't complain, but i have to agree with george carlin that if you vote for some bought and paid for schmuck, you've got no right to complain either when he does everything you don't want him to do.



there has always been a large segment of the artist/activist community who choose to back the nobody for president campaign, first started by wavy gravy i'd guess in 1976. this year, the anarcho-socialist wing is running vermin supreme for president on the one hand and actively pushing for a total boycott of the election on the other.



i've been in the middle of the road for a lot of years now and come from that chicago democratic machine political background. i'm very committed to the principles of our constitution and to the idea that only non-violent action can effect constructive change in the status quo. the argument of the election boycott people troubles me because they say when the government is invalidated in that way, it will get replaced. unfortunately, the governments cited, cuba, haiti and south africa, all fell violently. me and my peers of the hippie rainbow woodstock peace and freedom reality have made a lot of sacrifices over the past 50 years struggling against economic inequality foisted on the world by the warmongering, slavekeepers of the military-industrial complex and will continue to do so as long as any of us or our children breathe.





my question is how do we the people of the united states of america go about removing the criminals from our executive and legislative branches in one swoop without upsetting everything else? is there a provision for mass impeachment in the constitution or is it a one at a time thing?



i guess the general question would be which camp do you identify with? do you have any faith in the major parties? do you support a third party candidate? do you think it's time to just not vote at all? after all, it is clear that nobody is perfect and nobody cares.



happy day



peace



tommy tooter

 

[thecostumedanceparty]

I agree, athough I've hypocritically voted for one of the potential candidates. The problem is that it's a wasted vote if you don't vote for one of the main two candidates and often the two are higher qualified in politics.



The problem with politics is the whole system of politics. There's no logical way to accept them.



Take a look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZB0Ra1s01k

 

[Evil Eye]

The problem is that it's a wasted vote

But that's only because everyone thinks that way. That's the root of the problem, if you can change that mentality... well, you could have other parties (that matter). Bit like a free market economy come to think of it.

Take a look here:

Yes, an absolute monarchy is (theoretically) a very efficient way of government. The odds of getting some idiot for a king sooner or later are... 100% actually. Given that it's hereditary and provided there's no intrigue or revolution.

 

[Temerit]

If you're in a swing state, vote for Obama. If not, vote for Jill Stein.