With the understanding that the elections we are using are illegitimate, because of their unverifiable vote-count, let’s consider the candidate-choices:
Jill Stein pointed out something interesting when (in her debate-answers on Democracy Now) she mentioned that non-voters are the biggest voting-bloc – at least half of the voting-eligible population. Non-voters don’t make a secret of why they don’t vote. They make it clear that it’s because they’re completely disgusted with the “choices”. Candidates don’t differ from each other or offer any genuine change.
So, if we had honest, open, agenda-free media, and legitimate elections with verifiable count results, and a genuine choice between genuinely different candidates, then whom would those people vote for?
Certainly they would not for the uniformly corrupt and bought Republocrats who always “win” now and who are the reason why they don’t vote.
You’ve probably noticed that pretty much everyone who says that they’re voting for the Democrat says that it’s because we have to hold our nose and vote for the lesser-evil.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Does anyone actually like or want the Democrat?
If few people like the Republocrats, if few people like Hillary and Donald, then in what sense are they ‘the Two Choices”? Has there ever been a politician as disliked as these two? And yet we’re told that Hillary and Donald are the choices?
What an excellent joke.
People (at least the half who vote) evidently accept and believe in an election that is a “choice” between two candidates whom practically everyone strongly dislikes.
The notion that Jill Stein couldn’t beat Donald in an honest election, and that we therefore would need to vote for Hillary, is a hilarious joke.
In my recent 19-party poll, with Bernie removed, Jill Stein was the Condorcet winner, the top finisher. Donald Trump finished at bottom (not counting two write-ins who came in too late to get votes). The poll included three Democrats and three Republicans, chosen for their familiarity and one candidate each from 17 other parties.
Given that, do you think Jill wouldn’t beat Donald in an honestly-counted election?
Several times as many people ranked Jill Stein over Trump than vice-versa. Likewise for Jill vs Hillary.
In fact, the lowest-finishing socialist beat Trump by a factor of 2 to 1. The lowest-finishing socialist also beat the highest-finishing Republican by a factor of 1.5 to 1.
So, in an honest election, no one would need to vote for Hillary to beat Donald instead of just voting for Jill. Of course our Plurality voting system is the worst possible. But, if the elections were legitimate, then progressives’ best strategy would be to all vote for the most popular, well-known progressive and to all combine their votes there.
Right now, of course that most popular and well-known progressive is Jill Stein. But, as I’ve been saying, what is needed is for everyone to demand legitimate elections with verifiable vote-counting.
Leave a Reply