Awesome video.

And particularly timely given that the current most-likely eventual nominees for the R's and D's are also the two candidates with the highest rates of negative opinion numbers...

Yeah...no.

We can't only vote for candidates that align perfectly with our ideals. We can support those candidates but if they don't make it to the general election then you vote for the candidate that most closely matches your values. I cannot even conceive of the level of self entitlement I would need to feel to endorse the idea that only my first pick is deserving of my vote.

We can order one pizza. I want sausage but I do not like onions. Everyone else wants onions. I sit in the corner and pout and refuse to eat.

The only mature position is to encourage people to do more to actively support their preferred candidate. That is positive action. To advocate boycotting elections when you don't get your way is untenable...because everyone CAN'T get their way. You have to accept that your views will not always be in the majority. You have to be prepared to get some of what you want if you can't get everything.

This notion that YOUR candidate is the only right choice and everyone else is being manipulated....its just immature and naive.

There's a huge difference between a candidate that doesn't align perfectly with one's ideals and candidates diametrically opposed to one's ideals. You will NEVER find someone that aligns perfectly with your ideals except yourself.
If ALL candidates on the ballot are diametrically opposed to your ideals, the best solution is to write in the name of the candidate that DOES align at least mostly with your ideals, the second best idea is to simply not vote. Casting your vote for someone you think will be disastrous in order to deny someone you think will be apocalyptic is a terrible way to vote, IMO. I understand it, but I disagree with it.

If we order pizza, and the choices are limited to 4 types of mushroom pizza, or pizza with mushroom, onion, and sausage, and you are deathly allergic to mushroom, sitting in the corner and pouting and refusing to eat, while complaining to the room that they inappropriately completely excluded you from the process is the right choice.
Yes, it would be better to become more involved at the 'choose the toppings' level, but not everyone has that ability, and doing so is no guarantee of success.

If neither nominated candidate offers even some of what you want, what then?
I don't advocate not voting at all, but voting for the slightly lesser of two evils is not the only choice, supporting candidates that don't have a chance of winning THIS TIME can set up the next election so they do have a chance...it's a long game, but still better than 'boycott', and better than voting for certain disaster, even if that disaster is inevitable.
The notion that YOUR candidate is the only right choice and everyone else is being manipulated just might be reality in this instance, and not naïve in the least. Voting for someone just a step below apocalyptic seems naïve to me. If you think that the candidate is the only right choice BECAUSE that candidate is your choice, and not because they exhibit the qualities and positions you think are absolutely necessary, unlike all other candidates, then I agree, that's immature and naïve, but I don't think many made their decision that way.

Every election is different.

Vote for who you want for whatever reason you want...or don't.

I'll do the same.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, April 1st, 2016 9:16pm PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

#HowAboutNO. Remember I'm no voting for the canidate I most like, I am trying to keep out the candidate I most DON'T like, too.

I've got a confession to make, I voted for Nader in 2000. Gore seemed to be moving more towards the center, and I thought helping a 3rd party gain momentum was more important than choosing the lesser evil.

I was so wrong. After the horrors of the Bush years I don't have any doubt about how destructive an ill-qualified president can be. My only defense is that I live in the reddest state in the nation, and my vote didn't count anyway. But if I had lived in Florida that decision would have haunted me.

The problem is that the American election process is so fucked that calling it a democracy is actually getting to be a bit of a stretch these days.

The fact that @entr0py recognizes that his (her?) vote doesn't count should be a massive red flag. It is beyond stupid that in 2016, votes for a countrywide position (i.e. president) are split up at a local level.


And that's before you even get to the problems of how much first past the post voting sucks
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Problems-with-First-Past-the-Post-Voting-Explained

The presidential elections should be carried out under STV
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Alternative-Vote-Explained
and congress under mmp
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Mixed-Member-Proportional-Representation-Explained

Unfortunately, until you get some election reform.... you're kinda stuck with it.

Sorry, but if your choice is Clinton or Trump/Cruz? You HAVE to vote lesser of two evils. (although, I'm still hoping that if Bernie doesn't get the democration nomination, he might still run as a 3rd party)

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

The Alternative Vote Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

You know democracy is working when everyone is equally miserable.

Did anyone notice the subliminal frame of Trump at 2:18