If these two are the only options on the ballot, then you are relieved of duty and are free to flee to Mexico.
No, let us argue reality instead.
Thanks for making my point! This comment illustrates in a nutshell the difference between your apporoach and those who support the "we have to support the lesser of two evils" principle. The advocates of third parties chose to fight not "flee" and work toward the day when "unrealistic" alternatives become "realistic." They are in good company. Others who did the same were Frederick Douglass in the 1850s, the promoters of privatization in the 1970s, and dissenters who stayed in Russia fought the lonely fight against the Soviet Union in the early 1980s. They too rejected the "realistic" theory that their choices were limited to a limited set of evils. They made their own history rather than being victims of it.
If these two are the only options on the ballot, then you are relieved of duty and are free to flee to Mexico.
Thanks for making my point! This comment illustrates in a nutshell the difference between the apporoach of third party advocates and defenders of the "we have to support the lesser of two evils" principle. Third party advocates have decided not to "flee" but to work toward the day when "unrealistic" alternatives become "realistic."
They are in good company. Others who did the same were Frederick Douglass in the 1850s, the promoters of privatization in the 1970s, and dissenters who stayed in Russia fought the lonely fight against the Soviet Union in the early 1980s. They too rejected the "realistic" theory that their choices were limited to a limited set of evils. They made their own history rather than being victims of it.