|
Maybe I'm alone here, but I've never encountered a situation where I didn't have at least a small preference for one candidate over the other(s). I feel as though voting for the "lesser of two evils" is a civic duty if you see a difference between the candidates, desipte the fact that a totally different candidate would be preferable. At some point, reality should compell you to go into damage control mode and try to get the least harmful candidate elected.
It has been said above that voting "none of the above" forces the politicians to change. This seems not to be possible, however, because these voters do not give specifics about whay parts of the candidates' platforms they find distastful. If the politicians are totally unaware of how they would need to change in order to placate the null-voters, they certainly will not do so.
__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
|