Dear EternalVigilance,
"Cyanide or arsenic, fast or slow, you’re still dead."
The difference is, though, if any candidate is introducing cyanide to the wine of polity, he must be opposed at all costs, possibly even with extra-legal means. It's questionable whether one could even physically acquiesce to the candidate introducing cyanide. Upon his election, the patriot might be obligated to take up arms against such a tyrant.
If each candidate is introducing greater or lesser quantities of arsenic, on the other hand, by choosing the candidate with less arsenic, and by encouraging candidates over time, through multiple election cycles, to progressively reduce the amount of arsenic they introduce, one has time to resolve the problem, one may accept setbacks to the cause, and one may even find that applied pressure over time can nearly or entirely resolve the problem.
sitetest
Perhaps, since few seem to be listening, it's time for me to adopt more of the attitude of Frederick Douglass.
"At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation's ear, I would, to day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced."
