Is It WRONG If You Don’t Vote? (Trump vs. Hillary) – 8-Bit Philosophy

Our elections seem to be getting scarier and
scarier, dear viewer. Democrats warn of a petty racist, ready to
press the nuclear launch button with his tiny, tiny hands. Republicans warn of a corrupt tyrant, ready
to take away your guns and freedom. With options as scary as these, it seems that,
today, more and more people are ready to vote against a candidate they fear rather than
for a candidate they support. But is this strategy slowly killing our democracy? Today’s election isn’t unique — we’ve been
told for years that we sometimes need to pick the “lesser of two evils” in presidential
races. The candidate may not be perfect, but the
opposition is going to destroy the economy, take away your freedoms, and ruin your life. And to abstain from voting would be heresy,
sheer lunacy. According to consequentialist ethics, we should
judge the morality of an act, like voting, not by intention, but by consequence. You’ve probably heard this argument in
another form: “A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for the enemy.” But is there more to this dilemma then meets
the eye? According to French Philosopher Jacques Ranciere, these kinds of ethical frameworks destroy politics, rather than save it. People like to argue that the other candidate
is the real-life equivalent of Lord Voldemort. We’re told their political ambitions are
nothing short of pure evil. As a result, politicians become a symbol of
evil, rather than advocates for policy. But if we believe these politicians are modern-day
Hitlers, there’s no end to what we’re willing to sacrifice to defeat them. No casualties are too many, no ideals too
precious. What would you do to stop a candidate that
is ultimate evil? Would you risk your own life? What about someone else’s? Would you murder thousands of civilians? What about millions? Would you use 1 nuclear weapon? 10 nuclear weapons? Can there be any end to what you’d be willing
to do to vanquish evil? In international conflict, for Jacques Ranciere,
this means that no amount of sacrifice, collateral damage, or “rules of war” should impede victory. If we take this view towards the election,
the parallels become clear. If the opponent is the American Adolf Hitler
or Lord Voldemort, we must do everything in our power to defeat them. In other words: Goodbye democratic deliberation,
hello calculated warfare. So what if your side needs to skirt the law
or employ a few dishonest tricks to win? When asked to support a candidate we don’t
quite like because the other candidate represents an ultimate evil, we end up slowly chipping
away at our own values. We’ll give up honesty one year, justice
in another, and truth after that. After years of sacrificing our values, will
there be anything left to defend? Can we hold a candidate accountable when we’re forced to support them at all cost? When evil becomes infinite, so too do the things we’re willing to give up to defeat it. What do you think, dear viewer? Do the ends justify the means? Are the stakes too high to sit idly by and let evil prevail? Or, should we take the moral high-ground and refuse to vote? Even if some nasty consequences might ensue?


  1. This is just silly. So doing absolutely nothing is the same as holding on to your values? What values are you defending by doing fuck-all? Where is the moral highground in sitting at home scratching your balls while there are four candidates to choose from, not just two?

  2. "Is It WRONG If You Don't Vote?"
    I watched the video twice.
    Did he even answer the fucking question??
    It's suppose to be a simple yesnodepends answer.

  3. everyone should. if you have the right the vote you NEED to exercise it. This is a huge issue in the US…you should never NOT vote.

  4. Well ,It's preferable to vote third party than not to vote at all (assuming that you agree with the policy of a third party candidate)

  5. To many mistakes of "slippery slope" arguments here….I believe there are lines that can be drawn in any given scenario with the right frame and understanding to all the context and outcomes. And while it may be just as impossible to understand and know all the complex variables and outcomes of given situations like the presidential election processes, the rules within values can still be applied. No decision or indecision is also a decision.

  6. My God, I thought I would get explanations that I thought were terrible and horrible and one-sided… You get a sub for upvoting MORALS! And you have given me words behind my emotions to refusing to vote. Its a shame I screwed up this time, and it was out of spite.

  7. Some people sit out because they think the system is rigged. To that I say maybe, but if it isn't you just gave up your option to choose. Maybe that is how its really rigged. I don't really buy this line of thinking third parties to me are just no good. They are idealistic, but don't seem to get things done. They are also often over rated and its easier to convince the option to vote third party then try to get them to change there mind and vote across the aisle of the two party system. Ignoring tactics is also a selling out out of sorts. Politic are slippy and can use your own idealism against you. Marginalize villainize and destroy. A classic tactic one in witch the fascist knew well. I think people truly don't want to be pawns as surely as they don't want to play the game, but its much better to be a player then a piece in my opinion.

  8. So, yeah. Maybe if people stopped voting for ''the lesser of two evils'' we wouldn't have so shitty candidate or presidents by that manner.

  9. Vote for the people who represent your interests and will fight for them.
    If a candidate doesnt earn your vote they dont deserve it

  10. people should be able to vote or not to vote and face no backlash for it. those are the basis for a healthy democracy

  11. It didn't really matter what I did or did not do. You handed me two piles of crap and said, "Pick one." I could have not voted, but then half the world's population would be mad at me for not making a difference. Except, I am in the minority in my state, my vote did not matter. I could have voted for a third party, but much like the two major candidates, they do not represent me. So, I voted for the lesser of two evils and the candidate more likely to get themselves impeached.

    You see, the ideals of democracy got thrown out the window as soon as everyone made it in to an "us vs them" scenario. If people are so stubborn that they can't realize that there are grey areas in life, there is no conversation and we will not be able to work together.

  12. Just remember, America was never a democracy. Democracy lends itself to mob rule, the enslavement of a smaller group to the will of a larger, and the tyranny of those leading and guiding the mob. America was made a republic for the specific purpose of avoiding these fatal flaws, making everyone's voice matter. The republic allows for compromise.
    Those who want pure democracy are always the ones who are in the majority, wanting to silence the minority.
    Voting against the more evil candidate cannot kill our democracy because we simply never had one to kill. But I get what you're saying, it sucks we have to resort to it.

  13. How about just voting for the more qualified candidate of one of the two that we all know will take office? This video looks at voting strategy under the assumption that one of the candidates is some demonic Hitler figure. With each side thinking it's the other candidate. How about questioning that assumption? Maybe there's just two candidates, both of whom will do the job, and one is just more likely to do it better than the other. Why is that reality such a hard pill to swallow?

  14. citizens of the USA don't really have a voice. Whoever Congress wants as their own voice, will be president whether you voted or not. It's very simple. Ballots you say? yeah sure! no such thing!

  15. If the only two options are lesser evil and greater evil, by not voting you're just not exerting any control over your life, and letting other people inflict a decision upon you.

  16. In any election, the choice eventually comes down to two sides, two parties, two options for candidate. And those are whichever two that are most likely to win. In almost all of these situations, one candidate will represent a lower potential evil, to the point this can be predicted. Just because one candidate is a greater evil, it doesn't mean he or she is totally evil, and does not justify any means necessary to be defeated. America doesn't have a hell party. So, just because it makes sense to vote for the lesser evil, realizing that the intent SHOULD be to create the best possible consequences, it doesn't mean that subverting the democratic process that our ancestors worked so hard to create and defend is justified – especially when the lesser evil is simply a different tax plan, or a legal dispute over one topic. In short, voting based on consequences is logical, even though Jacque Ranciere (as described in the video) is not.Now, a separate question exists, whether it make sense to vote at all, as an American. George Carlin used to say it didn't, considering that the choices were both establishment cronies, bent to the will of the super rich, and also considering America's flawed electoral system whereby the popular vote doesn't even matter. I'm curious what he would've said if he were alive today. I imagine he'd be a Bernie supporter, but who can say? Anyway, I saw enough of a difference between Clinton and Trump to vote for her.

  17. Please inform what is meant with choosing the better of two democracies? I always thought we were a republic of all.

  18. The problem is not one dimensional in determining who to vote for. There are a slew of factors that enter into the decision, but perhaps if one wanted to examine this in terms of an ideal solution, then one would miss the whole reason and replace it with emotion.

  19. if politics keep with the "other person is evil" thing, I hope we see more crazy people shooting/poisoning/driving into candidates. that might stop the crazy. kind of hard to be saying "this person will destroy the world" one moment, and "its a terrible thing that this happened to them" the next. would kind of show how full of shit everyone is, though im primarily looking at america

  20. Keep in mind, if a third party candidate gets enough votes, that party can participate in the presidential debates next time around.

    Can you imagine how a Libertarian candidate would have torn both Hillary AND Trump to shreds in a 3 way debate?

  21. Not voting removes legitimacy… So if you don't vote, you can easily encourage others to overthrow them… When 50% of people supported someone, they have the say that 50% people agree with anything they do… Meanwhile on the flip side, if they won with a 5% legitimacy, they can only say 5% of people agree with their policies… I learned this from my sociology teacher, from which it is a reasonable philosophy stated by one of his professors (of which they where outspoken communists, they did not vote for this reason)

  22. I believe it is Bad Faith if one doesn't pick one or the other i.e. low voter turnout. In essence, you're putting the future of a state in someone else's hands and they are doing the same. Hence the bystander effect as someone's house is burning down with everyone in it.

  23. I love how you as a question in the title of your video, and then don't give an answer in the video. #EXTREMESARCASM #clickbait

  24. If you are uninformed about politics and voting just because a celebrity tells you to, then yeah I'd prefer you didn't vote or at least make an attempt to educate yourself.

  25. The way I saw it (just me, not trying to tell other people what they should have done)
    1. If you truly like one of the two main candidates, vote for them (I did not)
    2. Do I live in battleground swing state (currently Illinois so no)
    3. If no, is there a third party candidate I agree with at least 40% (there was)
    3B. If more than one, Is one more likely to get a higher amount and maybe make some progressive in terms of third parties getting attention (there was)
    4. If yes, do I think it is bad enough to suck it up and pull the lever (probably was, didn't have to think about it)

  26. I have so much respect for you folks at Wisecrack. You guys managed to take a very, very sensitive subject and talk about it in a very honest, very blunt way, yet still managed to respect literally everybody's political views. So professional. You guys rock!

  27. Evil is evil, greater, lesser, midling. The definitions are blurred. If i had to choose between one evil and another, id rather not choose at all

  28. I'm not going to ever vote cause if that person turns out bad, you have a share in that badness.

  29. Correct. You nailed it. The solution is not to vote, because we are self-regulate democratic animals, we're like other mammal groups because our wetware is programmed innately not to require leaders. -we don't need leaders. Leaders disappoint because they are not normal, they began with the crafting of common murder tools. we always elect "wrong ones.: Simple. Called Direct or Web Democracy, – uses block-chain for record and proto. 50-80 yrs?.

  30. You literally DID NOT TALK ABOUT if it's wrong to not vote at ALL. YOU JUST ASKED THE QUESTION AGAIN AT THE END!!!!

  31. I didn't vote for either of them and I don't regret it because they both sucked. I did go play The Witcher 3 that day though.

    "If I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all."

  32. According to the Bible, the world is run by the devil, and God will take control in the end of all suffering. By that logic, it doesn't matter, and just vote by your ideals. People who voted for Trump, prioritized economy over social reform and immigration. A Trump victory simply has to be respected, analyzed and used to prepare for a counter by 2020

  33. it what way is Hillary /Donald is a "lesser" evil to Donald /Hillary ?

    I think they are both insane people …For me the last president that I salute was JFK …after that the lineage ended for me and yes JFK isn't a "perfect " human being but he is a great president , he's the only one with a brain .

  34. No it isn't. There's no obligation to vote especially when used to help legitimizing untrustworthy people to have a monopoly on your life and the society you live in.

    Besides, there's other alternatives to effecting positive societal change namely direct action that don't involve putting a piece of paper into an elitist-run suggestion box.

  35. I suggest we symbiotically join with alien mind slugs, who will decide how a perfect government functions, because humans can't find a system without flaws.

  36. “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling… makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary, the definitions blurred; if I’m to choose between one evil and another, I’d rather not choose at all.” – Geralt of Rivia Witcher 3

  37. Explain this to Trumptn or someone like this "thing"…. He will blink at you for 10min. and then die from brain bleeding…. ;-/

  38. American democracy is just a mess because you only have 2 parties so if they're both shit you don't have any option but to let a terrible candidate win. in Britain, we have 10 parties that consistently get seats and can have significant influence in parliament. this means that there is always a decent alternative to vote for and as seat numbers are often close, they can have the power to force legislation.

  39. An easy way to fix that would be to allow voting against someone instead of for someone. Then you don't have to vote for a lesser evil, you simply vote against the greater one. This makes third parties much more viable as well, allowing for greater variety in views that could theoretically succeed.

  40. don't vote for someone you don't agree with, you lose either way but at least you don't give them satisfaction that they fooled another sheep to vote for them

  41. what about voting for someone you know isn't going to win? why? because you dislike the popular contenders. It's almost like not voting isn't it?

  42. I think we should all vote for whatever we think is the greatest possible evil. At least for a while. If nothing else, politicians getting confused as they try to explain why they're worse than their opponent is bound to get funny then.

  43. The porblem is our voting system. First past the post voting is known to create a two party system.

    There are alternitives and i belive Single tranferable vote system might give us a better representation.

  44. Not it's not wrong that's why they decided to make it voluntary. Besides, I don't vote for terrorist or their terrorist governments.

  45. Easy : not voting is wrong.
    But vote the one that convince you the most (even "third" parties!)
    Voting for the lesser of two evils is in the end…voting for evil.

  46. This is why we need pretty much any type of voting system besides the one we have today. The overly simplistic first-past-the-post voting system always leads to–to quote Ralph Nader–a "two-party dictatorship": where any views outside the mainstream (reasonable third party/independent candidate ballot & televised debate access, expanded voting rights to prisoners and felons, campaign finance reform, etc.) are quashed with equally brute force by two private money cults (the Republican Party and the Democratic Party).

Leave a Reply

(*) Required, Your email will not be published