Image Transcription:

A tweet from the George Takei Twitter account which states:

"A Democrat was in the White House when my family was sent to the internment camps in 1941. It was an egregious violation of our human and civil rights.

It would have been understandable if people like me said they’d never vote for a Democrat again, given what had been done to us.

But being a liberal, being a progressive, means being able to look past my own grievances and concerns and think of the greater good. It means working from within the Democratic party to make it better, even when it has betrayed its values.

I went on to campaign for Adlai Stevenson when I became an adult. I marched for civil rights and had the honor of meeting Dr. Martin Luther King. I fought for redress for my community and have spent my life ensuring that America understood that we could not betray our Constitution in such a way ever again.

Bill Clinton broke my heart when he signed DOMA into law. It was a slap in the face to the LGBTQ community. And I knew that we still had much work to do. But I voted for him again in 1996 despite my misgivings, because the alternative was far worse. And my obligation as a citizen was to help choose the best leader for it, not to check out by not voting out of anger or protest.

There is no leader who will make the decision you want her or him to make 100 percent of the time. Your vote is a tool of hope for a better world. Use it wisely, for it is precious. Use it for others, for they are in need of your support, too."

End Transcription.

The last paragraph I find particularly powerful and something more people really should take into account.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
4 points

I think that logic is employing the “best of two evils” ideology again. People should vote on the person that better represents them and person C is the one that represents most people. Voting against people they dislike is not the basis of democracy!

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Person C had 60% of people vote against them, they didn’t represent most people.

Unfortunately in our first past the post system it doesn’t matter how many people vote for other candidates, if you get the most you win.

Here’s a fun little history fact for you: back in 1860 there were 4 parties on the ballot for the presidential election. The winner got 39% of the votes. Link

permalink
report
parent
reply

That’s because FPTP is a terrible voting system. Tactical voting is the only realistic solution a voter has to the FPTP problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

No, it’s a well fleshed out theorem and is mathematically correct

permalink
report
parent
reply