Not voting for any candidate because none of them are progressive enough perpetuates the same system. How are you helping by not voting for the lesser evil?

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Explicitly describing genocide as "not progressive enough"

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 12 minutes ago

Politics is a spectrum, and theoretically there is a candidate even for you that would still support genocide and also be progressive enough to earn your vote.

[–] Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

There's always actual progressives on the ballot. It's just too many have fallen for the "lesser evil" brainwashing that they fail to see it. It's no different than the red scare crap we're still trying to kill.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 20 minutes ago

As a lifelong progressive who has voted in every election in the past 26 years, no there are no always actual progressives on the ballot. But your point that we should support them when there is one progressive, even when they cannot hope to win, is also fallacious. Sometimes they could win with our support, and sometimes they could not. Vote accordingly.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 hours ago

there's always a progressive candidate and you should always vote; just be aware that both the republican and democratic parties are actively perpetuating this system.

[–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 hours ago

I believe you can make the case for either option (lesser evil or third party) and either is definitely better than not voting, but I'm of the view that voting is a negligible part of our political involvement that gets too much attention, organizing is a lot more necessary and effective, otherwise things will never improve