The two party system is really quite fabulous in its own way. One should vote for the individual whose policies most are most beneficial to one’s own financial interests. If the Peasant Party moves too far in favor of the peasants, the middle class will vote with the Lords Party, and vice-versa. That is how is ought to be, that is. Owing to easily manipulable human nature, this is altered into something somewhat less practical: The idea is to elect the candidate whose ideology most closely resemble one’s own. In this way, some of the rubes members of the middle class can be convinced that voting in favor of his caste will benefit negroes queers sluts who had it coming meskins Messukins wetbacks some out group.

I have heard some claim that it is better for the opponent to win. In that way, the rubes misguided voters will be outraged at the cruel and disastrous policies implemented and see the err of their ways. There exist millennia of evidence to the contrary. In the last century, murdering millions of people while invading all your neighbors didn’t effect a revolution in Germany. The Gulags did nothing to harm Stalin’s regime. Mass starvation and cannibalism in a period of peace and typical weather didn’t loosen Mao’s grip on power. What makes people think a few hundred deaths caused by forcing dangerous pregnancies to be carried to term will cause anyone to bat an eye? Does anyone get up in arms when, say, a lack of inspectors or lax enforcement (or tossing out regulations altogether as “anti-business”) causes a few dozen deaths due to fungal meningitis?

No.

I’m sure the smelly hippies can smugly enjoy their moment of having “stuck it to the man.” Just don’t expect anyone to give a shit about the “courage of my convictions” you display when you announce you are “taking my ball and going home.”