What’s wrong with just saying “NO” when faced with the dilemma of having to select from several equally-unacceptable choices? After all, choosing the “lesser evil” is still choosing something “evil,” ‘di ba? So why choose it in the first place?
We always hear this “lesser evil” argument issue raised whenever elections are near, as if not choosing (read: not voting for) anyone is the worst evil of all. I think not. In fact, I believe the opposite to be true — i.e., not voting for anyone is way better than adding your vote to the mandate of a politician you don’t really trust.
Which leads me to this other common, election-related argument that not filling-in the Ballot entirely is a bad thing and that we’re somehow losing out by not maximizing the opportunity to include other candidates. There is something very wrong with this mindset. I really wouldn’t have any problem with filling-in all the blanks IF I had a lot of good choices to pick from. Ang kaso, wala eh. At most, we get a handful of good candidates from the pool of mediocre, thieving, clueless, and idiotic trapos we are regularly forced to choose from.
Kaya ako, I will only vote for candidates I really, REALLY believe in. And if that means submitting a Ballot with a lot of blank spaces, so be it.
Hindi baleng Balota ay butas-butas, basta ang boto ko’y wagas!
By the way, hindi lang angkop ang prinsipyong ito sa pag-boto; it can also be a guide when choosing what to eat/drink, where to go, or what to say. I don’t think that you are losing by choosing to just eat at home and not eat out; by going on staycation instead of going with the throng; or by just keeping quiet.