What happens when neither candidate is your ideal candidate? In my country, it has been decades that people have had to choose between bad and worse. All handpicked by the "system" and not a single one being an ideal candidate for the "people".
This election is generally perceived as choice between 2 bad persons, 2 bad leaders, or choosing lesser evil if you prefer.
Some people have higher preference of political correctness, smooth behavior and strong, likable speeches. Some feel bad/desperate enough to don't give a f__k about this and rather want to see a change in current not-so-bright-for-them situation. This kind of situation happens very often, all around the globe where you have elections.
Personally, choosing between spoiled amoral brat who didn't achieve much without daddy's cash and influence, and Clinton which is arrogant lawyer (where is the common lawyer hate when it matters?) apparently too deep in corporate pockets to ever see or solve anything real... well, I guess I would just pick a candidate that doesn't have a chance.
luckily not US citizen, so this is just outside view
It's not like we're allowed to choose leaders from the population at large. We are generally stuck voting for the people that run for office. Quite often, there are few choices and none of them are very good.
Very possible since, at this point in time, I'm just looking for the least terrible candidate to get behind. I'm having trouble thus far since all have proved pretty terrible thus far.
Unfortunately that is what it comes down to when I vote... the lesser of the two evils.
>"If there are only bad candidates the situation is more complex, but this is an edge case which only happens in thought experiments"
I think you and I have differing opinions about the candidates. What do you consider "good"? Has there even been a "good" candidate in the past 20, 30 years?
Of all of the candidates only two have a chance of winning. If I vote for someone other than those two, the one that I think is the worst may get elected.
If I've learned anything atop my 33 wise years old, is that any political candidate that looks like a clean break from the old guard, is exactly the same if not worse than its predecessors.
And this is just my cynicism: the corollary is that any candidate, new or old, is a bad choice, except extremely rare exceptions.
Don't you think that the whole 'democracy' model is flawed from the top to the bottom? If there were no good candidates offered to the public, how would the public choose a good one? And if a good one would somehow emerge, it is trivial to 'catch him' with a pack of heroin or being related to 'enemies', isn't it?
oh yeah, 100%. I don't exactly think it's optimal for my country's 82 YO incumbent president to continue to run for 4 more years either. Frustrating realities of a 2 party system, you're just picking the lesser bad instead of a proper represenative of your values.
The Ukrainians choosing whomever they want is the best outcome. There is still the possibility that they could choose someone terrible, but that is their prerogative.
The perfect president does not exist. I’d settle for one with whom you can have a discussion and who does not see the world through the prism of an imaginary past.
You end up with Candidates who are neither principled nor charismatic but have blessings of Party Boss and fits in a narrow zone of like/dislike factor.
But all candidates get demonized, and then you choose between the least of both evils. In practice, it results in a similar outcome. Media could paint all candidates as the greatest hero, and you'd pick the bigger Saint of them all.
One style is the complement of the other, so I don't think you make a good point.
reply