Regarding the relation between voter and electoral candidate, best practice for solidarity and practicality?

The voter's choice candidate has been predicted beyond


all odds to lose the race to one of the major parties


candidate. Should the voter cast their vote with the


candidate they have sided with based on their judgement


of competency or should the voter vote for one of the other


candidates, the lesser of the evils so to speak, because


their candidate appears not to have a chance for winning


the election?


For example, Candidate A, Candidate B, and Candidate C


are all running for office and a voter has evaluated


Candidate A to be the most competent, but the majority


of the population has been forecasted to vote for


Candidate B and Candidate C. Considering that


Candidate A appears to be unable to win the race


should the voter vote for one of the less competent


candidates instead?





If the voter should always vote for only the "potential"


winning candidates then what implications does that


have on the opportunity for any new parties to enter


the election race?

Regarding the relation between voter and electoral candidate, best practice for solidarity and practicality?
A person should always vote for the candidate they chose to


begin with and not vote for a person based on the polls.
Reply:Probably very little;


Or,of course,very great indeed.





For you are talking about the Single-system Mass majority


rule way.


And by now we all should know that it only has "new" parties


or groups,WITHIN THAT SYSTEM.


These are then catagorized left/right/center; And,in reality,


this on-going(and ever so slightly boring) debate about


who-to-vote-for-given-the-knowledge-of-w...


have-the-most-votes(in the future) is all a bit,well,pointless.


Its not though,if you think that democrats are like republicans,


or that being a democrat and also being an environmentalist


is two different things.What it boils down to is that,whoever


"makes-up the agenda" for any politcal party,does so about


from most "Angles", but of course Not from ALL.


Eg, Do the democrats support Jesus and christianity,just


exactly as do(a proper and committed!) the republicans!


And do both so-called parties think that "cleaniness is next


to godliness"!And act the same via each other!


I dont think so.Its the"nature" of majority rule im afraid!!!


Personally,i believe that majority rule could be superceeded


by a better system;select our so-called leaders by random


selection;(it gives more freedom to you and me and,these


so-called majority-rule leaders will be back where they


belong-on their soap box- away from ordinary folk!!)


So thats the A,B and C of it, from where i am at.
Reply:Why vote at all?


The last two elections were rigged. You will never get a competent candidate to win. Look at Stevenson for an example. A race run on popularity and promises instead of knowledge and capabilities just doesn't make sense.


Even the process of becoming a candidate nowadays will insure that no one without financial clout will ever be elected.


Why not just let the corporations take over?
Reply:One should ALWAYS vote their conscience. Win , lose or draw. It is the only way to even possibly attain the government you desire.
Reply:Voter should vote for the candidate of their choice. Voting for someone you think he/she isnt the best for the job, is not taking yourself serious.
Reply:Theoretical Example: I might think McCain is the best choice between Hillary and Bush. But I may know McCain doesn't have a snowball of a chance in any hot election. I don't want either Hillary or Bush. If I vote for McCain I know he will throw his votes to Bush when he concedes because they are from the same party. So if I vote for my candidate of choice it will become a vote for Bush and I have not had the opportunity to make a real choice.
Reply:Prediction, Forecast?: Consider the Truman presidency -- the great newspapers went to print with news that Truman had lost -- in one great big headline, front page. Within hours following, the Print media had to eat crow: Truman won.





These castings are put up by those who endow others with what they feel others need to know, skilled they are at postulations, cynical they are as to the brevity of human understanding, and who have ready access to and do comprise the mechanism that underlies that State (meaning, Nation), whose power brokers invariably consist of the dominant mass of that given State or consensual reality -- true of any State (body politic) the world over: human nature is the same the world over.





The Implications? and on founding new parties?: the electorate rests still on the precise, on precedent, in which all that has been, is, or ever will be is thought from out of the worlds of God and never is there conception of somewhat other, a new, a difference, a radical thing -- thus have we cowardice, not bravery; the herd, not the new initiative; comfort, not rigor; wealth, ridicule, and power, not the inventive.





These power brokers, whether they regard themselves as this or not -- fix the minds of others, who become brainwashed, starched, drip-dried,and ironed.





Inside the status quo, which is what the mass becomes, the resolve for better or worse is left to the candidate that best suits first oneself and only then do we have, through some measure of reflection, a resonance to the needs overall: but to avail of this requires an educated electorate, which in fact -- not ironically -- is not what the dominant or the status quo banks on providing to those who can truly bring construction and change.





The history and the effect has been that voters suffer themselves to select not the least of evils but rather the evil of the leasts.





" Can the interests of all the denominations within a democracy be accounted for in the absence of solidarity with the candidate who is the most appropriate representative of some of those denominations? "





Yes, and this takes us to the true meaning of 'potential' : let's just say ' because' : once the principle is set, the mulitples of examples are but consequential, or not. While a void may well exist materially, tangibly, the true understanding, say, the blueprint, that can identify and produce the best candidate is quite possible again, and can be replicated, if not now, then verily.