Voting the Spiral: height vs balance

[martins name]

Voting for the highest spiral stage never sat right with me as a Swede looking at Swedish politics. Finnaly I think I've found a better principle.
Vote for a the best balanced politician unless it's time for a political revolution. 
It's time for a Green revolution in America so the principle of voting the highest works in that particular context. In Sweden, we had that political revolution around the sixties to nineties when we became a social democracy, which I support. But now I think the blue/ORANGE/green moderates are better managers of that social democracy than the GREEN left.
If it's true that Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist(Which is way left of social democracy. I know, it's confusing.) as he has said himself, then he would be further to the left than is healthy for America. But if he were president it wouldn't matter because he wouldn't be able to turn America as far as he would if he was a Dictator. Americans don't practically need to think about what is too far left for a long time as that is so far away from the current system. After the Green Revolution has happened in America American leftists will have to face that question and I think the conclusion of wise people will be to seek politicians with balance of all the different stages.

[Leo Gura]

Vote for the highest stage running who has a decent chance of winning.

That's the principle.

Do not vote for people who have no chance of winning even if they are Jesus. Jesus is never going to win an election so don't even consider that option.

Edited March 18 by Leo Gura

[Daniel Balan]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Vote for the highest stage running who has a decent chance of winning.

That's the principle.

Do not vote for people who have no chance of winning even if they are Jesus. Jesus is never going to win an election so don't even consider that option.

I feel unable to convince anyone to do the same. Everyone seems to be voting based on what their TIKTOK feed is telling them to. How do you convince a stage blue person to vote for who I deem as a stage green candidate? I can't even convince my mother whom is a stage blue ultra Christian orthodox woman. Let alone my father who is a stage red thug. 

Edited March 18 by Daniel Balan

[martins name]

@Leo Gura There is no room in that formula for avoiding extremism. Green extremism, meaning green without healthy blue and orange, just happens to not be a political threat in America right now and I think it makes you biased.

[Leo Gura]

@martins name My notion of "highest stage" excludes toxic versions of all stages. Obviously you don't vote for an unhealthy toxic verison, unless the alternative is an even lower toxic version. 

[martins name]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

My notion of "highest stage" excludes toxic versions of all stages.

That has not been clear unless what you mean by toxic is ridiculous parodies. If toxic means not having integrated other colors then my principle seems like a better articulation of what you think if electoral viability is also added to the formula.

Edited March 18 by martins name

[Davino]

@martins name Toxic means existential shadow aspects of each stage. Like if you hold the Christian view then satan is the shadow. There's no way around this. If you are stage red then "the enemy" is the shadow. If you're stage blue then "chaos, pluralism and relativity" is the shadow. And so on. 

Are you saying if you can be in sixth grade with pending subjects from fifth. Well that can happen as well. But there are certain blindspots intrinsic to each grade, which are self-destructive and short sighted.

[martins name]

16 minutes ago, Davino said:

Toxic means existential shadow aspects of each stage

Since all stages have these what would distinguish between a healthy and a toxic version of a stage? 

[Leo Gura]

You can even boil the principle down to this:

Just vote for the least toxic candidate.

Edited March 18 by Leo Gura

[martins name]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Just vote for the least toxic candidate.

Ye common sense. I like that

[Davino]

14 hours ago, martins name said:

Since all stages have these what would distinguish between a healthy and a toxic version of a stage? 

Okay so that's a nice distinction. We can say toxic from a meta perspective as I was talking about but we can also say toxic from within a stage.

From within as you mention, I find troublesome to properly convey it. I'd like to contemplate it before giving a proper answer. It's an interesting question.

[martins name]

@Davino There are many different ways for a stage to be toxic. Demonizing other stages is one of them. All tier 1 stages have that to some extent but some people are way worse than others. 
Another toxicity is how all tier 1 stages can be twisted by fear in particular ways. Beige becomes greedy and cowardly, Purple becomes hostile to outgroup, Red gets antisocial, blue becomes hateful of deviants etc.. All Tier 1 stages are driven by fear to some extent but some people more than others. 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Here is the principle, if you’re Swedish, then vote only for Vänsterpartiet each election and pretend as if the other parties are not even an option.