Notes

I chose not to vote. If I can vote at all, that is. ayy

A while back, like 4 years ago, I was told a story. Thought this might let you understand my choice. Lemme rewrite this here so it seems more realistic. I'm sure some of you recognizes this one. Shout out to weeb nation.

There was a soldier. A special typed soldier. Doesn't really matter, all you need to know is that he was pretty trained. Finally after his services he finally got to go on a medium sized ship with 50 other people. They set sail and found that the ship was sabotaged. Water is leaking in slowly and they realized it too late. Of course the man quickly evacuated everyone off to the 2 smaller ships, 30 and 20 on each excluding himself. After some time he found that both of the ships had holes. He immediately concluded that someone out of the 50 is causing this. He also only had time to save one ship. What now?

> Does he try to save everyone by saving one ship and pull people from the other ship out?
But then the ship would sink with so many people on it, and saving a few is not an option. How could he choose who gets to survive? He does not have the luxury to take his time and think about who the villain is either.
> Does he choose to guess who is the villain and proceed to save the other ship where the villain was not on?
No way, what if he was wrong?
> Sacrifice self to save an extra person?
Altruism prevents you from doing further good. Not that he was rejecting the idea, but it is unlikely a special trained soldier who had seen some shit would pick this option. [4]
>>The obvious choice would be saving the ship with the most people, right? Utilitarianism at its best. [5]
Now, 30 people saved, 20 people lost. He saved the majority, there's nothing to be ashamed about.

This time the ship was split into 20 and 10 on each ship. As he was trying to figure out who the villain was, he sensed the ship is slowly sinking. And this time the ship is unfixable.
What are his options?
The same thought process repeated and sure enough he saved the ship with 20 people by putting them on 2 different small boats, each carrying 10 and 10.

But once he reached the shore, he looked back and thought to himself: Did he really sacrificed 30 to save 20? [1]

Quite the moral dilemma litmus test I know. Another one I have in my pocket is the Trolley problem but that's for another day.
Back to the topic of voting, I just want to say the soldier is like the voter. He didn't want either choice; nor did he wanted anyone to die, god forbids that he let everyone dies. He had to make a choice so he made his path. That said, doesn't that mean I'm an asshole that chooses not to pick anything when "the contract is not perfect"? Doesn't that mean I'm willing to let everyone die?

> Of course this example is a little bit extreme; when it comes to survival, only the strong lives. If the soldier can survive by using the power he has, why would he choose to die with a so called "good cause" that does not mater to him, since he knew nothing about the other 50 passenger?
> What if there were some of his family members? You might ask.
How do you think he survive? The soldier must had taken the smaller ship or the boat, which means he could had taken someone else with him. If the soldier had the option to save lives, and had no threat coming at him during the process, why not? It could go either way though, why yes?
> Ok what if all 50 passengers were his family?
Family or not he couldn't possibly - I know I won't - have much emotional attachments to most of them anyways.

There is almost not one solid reason why the man should save anyone, other than maintaining his morality and values, keeping them consistent. In other words, so that he doesn't get nightmare every night because he chose to not save someone, which means his act was along the lines of killing someone by choice.

Yeah, he had no solid reason. He just didn't want to become a monster. Am I a monster then to choose not to vote?
Considering I'm not the only one with power here, which in this case I'm not the only one who can vote, I think not saving anyone is fine.
Then you have this question of "what if it directly affects you?" type of confrontational replies. What can I say? There must be someone else that is in the same group as me, waiting to protest and vote for the lesser evil.
That means I'm using them while staying away from any danger right? Not really. I wish to stay away from the argument in the first place since I am not educated and well informed enough, and by well informed I mean first hand, information processing people behind the scenes, to say anything useful. Unless I am determined to get there I choose not to argue at all. Yes this does not improve my critical thinking but this is not a topic I'm interested to begin with.

You might think I am selfish, like those people who don't give a fuck and are willing to sacrifice the world because there's nothing to gain with value, but I think this one is slightly different. I refuse to get defend or attack either of them. By denying this power, I am also "holding myself in contempt" (in law when someone refuse to go through cross examination he can choose to not talk for the rest of that case's trial), thereby preventing myself to be a hypocrite. However, this also means I cannot make fun of the issue and the supporters or make the situation better. That is the least I have to do. [2]
You see this cycle now?
- I refuse to talk about it because I'm not interested to get better at talking about the topic.
- By not talking about the topic, I don't know who I should vote for, adding the fact that it doesn't concern me and if it does someone else like me is dealing with the situation, I don't vote.
- Therefore by not voting, the least I need to do is to not talk about it.
Yeah this goes backwards too.

Does not mean people who are supporting the lesser/greater evils are making a dumb choice. At least they are trying. Staying silent or ignoring will not solve anything. All these exposing and arguments are a community's way of cleansing itself. This alone is good enough of a reason to vote, not for me at least. In some sense this also involves respect. If you admit about the flaws you not only can improve and do better so outsiders can stop making fun of it - yeah I am super guilty of this (ಠ╭╮ಠ ) - you also start conversation easier with the opposing side, not to mention you are setting an example for others. I'm sure you guys at least can figure out this much. [2]

If you vote for the lesser evil, really you are just slowly and painfully giving up your values. Does the end justify the means when you vote for the greater evil so you can achieve something impossible? Or stakes too high to sit idly and let evil prevail when voting for the lesser evil? Or will you take the moral high ground and refuse to vote even though some nasty consequences might happen? [3]
I don't fking know to be real with ya.

If your "duty as a citizen" kicks in, vote and be wary of the flames that will come your way. Don't let this discourage you, ignoring the problem and hope they go away is more foolish than not voting. To put this differently, don't be like me. I know everyone is not like me, because if everyone is no one would be fixing my problems on a macro level if it concerns me directly XD
Hypocrite much? Nah, what I'm saying is think for yourself, not everyone can make a monstrous decision like this. I'm just trying to soothe you guys after the shitstorm I let you go through when reading this.

Maybe I'm just trying to falsely justify myself. I might be "shutting myself in my own small world". I hear that sometimes but realistically, "the world" so to speak doesn't exist. Only one's own mind is sure to exist, this the idea behind solipsism [6].

In any case, for all my American friends, I wish you glhf and think this through before November 8th.

Credits:
[1] Fate/Zero Episode 24
[2] Feigning Ignorance by ThatAnimeSnob - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx-1wkpcYcE
[3] Is it wrong to not vote? by Wisecrack - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N-cG1cshpc
[4] Altruism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism
[5] Utilitarianism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
[6] Solipsism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism