Lesser of two evils?

Question

As it is true, I personally do not approve of George W Bush. I did not vote for him, either. However, if GW had not been voted into office, John "Ketchup" Kerry would have been. We had to vote for the lesser of two evils. How else could we resolve this problem, when we have no option?

I know there are other parties to vote for as well, and I would vote for them. I guess the majority of Americans feel as if the other parties would not get elected anyway, so why vote for them? (I know it is a bad way of thinking)...But it is true. I don't even know if Bush won the elections, but we will never know.

I hear some people say, "You can't complain unless you vote." That is very wrong. Sometimes I don't vote because I don't want to feel responsible for what is in office. In this case it is so.

I do not believe that Bush is just a flat-out idiot. I do however feel that he is a puppet to his cabinet, and should be resolving problems here in the U.S. Instead he is trying to build a complete new government in another country, and play world police. Americans voted for him, not Middle East citizens, so why is he taking care of them?

What would Kerry have done?

What will McCain do? (Go, Johnny, Go Go Go.)

--So confused and feeling hopeless for our future!

Answer 1

That is a very excellent question.........one that has been discussed many times over.
I voted for the lesser of the 2 evils (at least I thought I did). My other choice being which side of the mouth I should listen to. Not much choice!
On Iraq
My concern is how the rest of the world perceives
this country. If Bush was truly misinformed...then that explains all of the dumb jokes.
If however he just wanted to finish daddy's job...that is so not right! Daddy should have finished what he started and that is why he only had one term.

Talk about all the evils!


P.S. That "ketchup" is a first for me
Thanks for the question
Happy New Year

Answer 2

Great question. First, and foremost, one should never choose the lesser of two evils. Even if the third or fourth party candidate has no chance of winning, but represents you best, vote for that person. This isn't gambling. While you want your candidate to win, you shouldn't be trying to vote for the one you think can win, but the one who represents you best.

How to resolve this situation is easy, but very comples. First, I would say we need to educate the people that in reality, most are not Republicans or Democrats. They are most likely Liberterians or Reform Party Members. People have this mindset that Dem or Rep are the only choices since that is what the majority vote for. If we could find a way to make people realize that the majority is in the middle, and that if they change their voting ways, both parties would lose power quickly. Neither side wants you to know that though. While both parties have different agendas, one common goal is keeping the power in the hands of only the two main parties.

Second, there needs to be "Abstain" on all ballots. Right now, all you can do is not vote for a certain election, and nothing is counted. If abstain were there, you would be able to see how many people voted, and decided that neither candidate was suitable for them.

Third, get involved. There is a candidate out there for you. Find that person and vote for them, even if they do not have a snowballs chance. Again, you're not gambling, pick the person best suited to represent you. If they lose, at least you voiced your opinion. There is no such thing as a wasted vote.

Answer 3

I personally didn't consider Kerry to be an "evil". Although he wasn't my first choice in the Democratic primaries, he's a decent and intelligent man who would have made a far better President than Bush.

Nevertheless, you're right that you as a voter will sometimes be faced with two major-party candidates who are both unpalatable to you. The alternative of not voting, to teach the politicians a lesson, is silly. They'll just keep on ignoring you. Voting for a sure-loser minor-party candidate is almost as silly. You'll have no effect on this election and virtually none on future elections.

What I'd recommend is:
1) From the candidates who have a realistic shot at winning, vote for the one you think best, even if "best" in this instance isn't very good.
2) Do what you can to not be in this position by supporting a good candidate in the primaries. In 2006, for example, two incumbent members of Congress -- a Republican in Michigan and a Democrat in Georgia -- lost their seats when they were beaten in their party's primary. Where your party has no incumbent running for re-election, it's even easier to have an impact. The point is that you needn't sit passively by and wait to see which two candidates the major parties present to you, and then start complaining about them.

Answer 4

Yeah, that was definitely a tough call. I don't like Bush at all, but Kerry's arrogance and personality made it impossible to vote for him, too.

There are other options, such as the Libertarian party, but they're a little hard to get along with too. A way that might actually make the news is to write-in a president and vice president whose names are so off-the-wall that somebody somewhere will report it on the news.

I've seen Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck appear, for example. Celebrities are also a good draw. Satan or "Son of Satan" probably won't make it to the news, along with religious names of any kind - can't violate the PC laws on TV, after all.

Unfortunately there's no guarantee that your entry will show up on the news.

Here's a thought - write in the names of the two top newscasters in your town as president and vice president. How could they resist reporting that one?

I know, I know. It's stupid. But what else can you do, except not vote as the other guy said?

Actually, not voting is not such a good idea, because there are other offices on the ballot worthy of your attention. Maybe vote for the local guys and leave the president vote blank?

No easy answer.

Good luck,
Big Al Mintaka

Answer 5

bah! i'm sorry but this is so wrong. but then, there can be no easy answer.

i do not approve of Dubya in any way shape or form. his incumbency is a travesty visited upon this country, a sham, and a fraud. let's talk about voting for the lesser of two evils. we're supposed to elect the best man for the job, not the least evil. unfortunately, as you say there was no option.

about kerry. the last presidential election was as much of a sham as the previous one, the coup d' etat, the subversion of the us constitution. john kerry is geo bush's cousin. i still cannot believe how many anti bush people embraced kerry's candidacy. the whole thing was staged.

lesser of two evils? although i would have loved to love billy clinton, i could not. i saw through him and his candidacy early on. still i thought "lesser of two evils". sure didn't want bush senior in that office. i now realize he was only a stand-in stuntman, the nation as a whole was rejecting bush, the election turned into a give-away. and shortly bubba showed his true colors. i'm not talking about liberal politics nor sex in the whitehouse, rather gangsterism.

we need a whole new line-up.

Answer 6

I'm really hopeful for this next election. I'm hoping the candidate chosen is represents real change. I don't mean like he has different views than the current administration or the shallow use of the word on political tv shows. I mean that they will be someone different. Someone who can really bring this country back together. So that conservatives and liberals can actually sit down at the table and actually TALK to eachother instead of just throwing around pointless insults.

As for my opinion on Kerry....Eh.... I really don't know anymore. I would've voted for him if I was old enough when he was running. But now that I can vote I just don't know where my views are anymore.

Answer 7

People want to vote for someone who is electable. You know , despite how much you like some Libertarian or some Constitution Party candidate. That they arent going to get elected in a national election.

The best thing to do is get people like that voted in in your local elections. Local/State elections are more important to you anyway. local issues affect you more on a day to day basis.
And the local politicians move up to state positiions and then to national positions.

On the local level 3rd party candidates are electable.

Answer 8

They are both idiots but only one is evil.

I hope I live to see the real axis of evil exposed.

It will be the greatest South Park of all time!
Saddam & King George (AKA GWB Jr. with a cluster bombing Jewish mommy who looks like George Jr. ... Sr. was way worse! OMG way WORSE!) will be vying for the love of Satan.
And Karl Rove will be green with envy! And Satan would forget all about Chris:-)

2004 was not a choice between the lessor of the Evils,
but it was a moral choice.
You chose wisely.

Had more like you voted for "Ketchep"?
(What does that mean?) ...
we wouldn't be mourning the deaths of 3,000 PATRIOTIC soldiers, Isreal never would have dropped cluster bombs on civillians and GWB Sr., Jr. , Cheney, Rumsfield, Rove & Rice
would be in jail awaiting their just desserts.

Lessor of the Evils, indeed.

Answer 9

The two party system is broken. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. You have two choices. Either vote for a third party that has views closest to yours or don't vote at all.

Answer 10

There would be no use in voting for another party because it would have just let Kerry in, there fore putting a big target on the back of Uncle Sam!!!