I'd love to hear more on your comment that "HARM REDUCTION is what all voting IS" - is that just Politics or all human coming-to-agreements? Also, does this apply to a household with cats?
I hadn’t thought about it this way until your question, but isn’t all ethical decision making ultimately about harm reduction? And man, a household with cats sounds DELIGHTFUL. I miss having cats.
But seriously, however the primaries shake out, come november the reality is, however ANY of us wish the nominations had panned out, one of two people will be president, and as ethical members of a community, harm reduction at that point has to be our goal. Protest votes or non-votes don’t send a message and they don’t punish anyone. They just ensure that we don’t get a say in harm reduction when we don’t like either choice-and people, real people suffer, as we can see daily. Our judiciary has already been reshaped for decades, and we’re likely to lose one if not two more supreme court justices. Spite voting –or not voting-- is an inherently unethical choice.
