There are two political parties: A and B.

A announces that if it gains power, it builds a cinema.
B announces that if it gains power, it builds a theatre instead.

However, the reality is different.

If A gains power, it tries to trigger a war, and we all can be killed.
If B gains power, it tries to root grass-eating, and we all can starve to death.

Starting a war is more dangerous than rooting the grass-eating, so I should vote for B instead of A.

However, all well-known justifications of democracy assume that people vote for those whose politics they like the most.

If people choose someone because of other reasons, it is called tactical voting.

In the case of tactical voting, it remains pretty mysterious what are the advantages of democracy.

The possibility of tactical voting and its frequent occurrence cast doubt on common justifications of democracy.

I do not choose party C, whose plan I like, because it falls out anyway or is not altogether on the list.

Therefore, I choose party B, whom I do not want, but who is less mad than party A, whom I do not want at all.

So I vote for B.

However, later they will announce that I, too, gave them a mandate to root the grass-eating, despite the fact I chose them only to prevent A, who would start a war, from gaining power.

They say I have not fulfilled my civil duty if I do not vote at all.

However, I cannot have a moral obligation to choose between two robbers because by choosing either of them, I would endorse the legalization of robbery.

Published by wrestlerblower


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: