(this is a sarcastic post meant to highlight the absurdity of some of the “greater good” rhetoric we’ve been hearing, especially around leaving vulnerable populations like disabled people behind in case of revolution, basically accelerationism)

  • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
    41·
    18 hours ago

    Yes, it’s possible to have 2 shit candidates you know :P

    Yes, and Kamala lost.

    In Australia we are frequently voting for the ‘least worst’ candidate

    Australian doesn’t have first past the post voting! What are you talking about!

    • ikt@aussie.zoneEnglish
      13·
      18 hours ago

      Australian doesn’t have first past the post voting! What are you talking about!

      I don’t get it, how does this preclude having shit options to vote for?

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
        41·
        18 hours ago

        Because the entire justification for “lesser evil” voting is that America has first past the post voting

        • ikt@aussie.zoneEnglish
          11·
          14 hours ago

          I don’t get it, can you explain it more? I’m not talking about the voting system, I’m talking about the culture:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle#In_modern_elections

          In 2012, Huffington Post columnist Sanford Jay Rosen stated that refusal to vote for the lesser of two evils became common practice for left-leaning voters in the United States due to their overwhelming disapproval of the United States government’s support for the Vietnam War.[8] Rosen stated: “Beginning with the 1968 presidential election, I often have heard from liberals that they could not vote for the lesser of two evils. Some said they would not vote; some said they would vote for a third-party candidate. That mantra delivered us to Richard Nixon in 1972 until Watergate did him in. And it delivered us to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in 2000 until they were termed out in 2009”.[8]

          She can add it delivered Trump 2024 as well to that list