this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
645 points (98.9% liked)
Political Humor
1936 readers
623 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, but when one side is blatantly bad you should completely vote to other option, then that side will either vanish and new party will appear, or they'll course correct and put someone better. If they always get half the vote whatever they do, then you don't get a change.
If you call it unrealistic, look at Nepal's election results this week (look into what led into the election too if you want more info).
I am all for voting for the lesser of evils when it's our only choice, but in the US right now we have an evil group supporting a more evil group. Our answer is to make sure we actually get politically active and engaged, we've seen a lot of positive outcomes recently with actual progressive representatives getting seated into positions of power and all it took was actual work on the ground and volunteering and supporting the right people by being informed.
Most of the horrors we're dealing with now are a direct result of not enough involvement in both local/state elections as well as midterms over the last couple decades, many of the worst members of house ran without opposition. I'm not saying "both sides are bad, don't vote" I'm saying we need to flush out ALL the bad, whatever color they have. And we can do it. Despite the doomerism that is rampant right now.
I am very familiar with Nepal and wouldn't say there's enough parallels to the US to really make strong comparisons beyond the broadest concepts like radical reform led by a younger and more connected generation, that IS something we can do here at least.
No, it's people who don't vote or won't vote for the lesser or 2 evils that are part of the problem. Change is incremental and people rather not vote if they can't get what they want immediately. My hair stylist still hasn't registered to vote and she's 30yo.
I'm guessing you do not know the election thing I'm talking about, in Nepal the new election results (after the protest) basically gave >60% seats to a completely new party, while old powerful parties now have barely any representation, and it's not even a two party system. If it was two party system the new one would have gotten almost 80-90%.
So if something similar happened here, given people believe "both evil", third party would get overwhelming votes, if not at least the "more evil" would barely get any votes. The excuse of "we only have less evil to choose from" does not work if majority of the people still voted the "more evil", why would a party change if they keep getting votes based on what they are doing.
Edit: To add to this, even the registered and active members of the old parties voted for the new one. They even took campaign money to campaign for old parties, went to the people and told them to vote for the new party lol.
This kinda of results comes from not having your whole identity about a political party, which I don't see it here, and the strong individualism, where people say "well he gave us money last time, I'll vote him"