Counter-intuitive voting strategy

[Andreas]

What do you think about always voting for the person you like the least? I thought it would be a nice idea but i got a lot of criticism recently.

The strategy is basicly if you want person A to win you vote for person B. And if you dislike person C even more than person B you vote for C. That way people will be made more conscious of the limitations of person C and he won’t have really have  a chance next time. However if you where the most unconscious, and C had the best perspective, then person C will get more power and steer the people into higher levels of development. If that’s the case then I would vote for A next year. 

What’s your opinion? I don’t want this to be political as i know it is against the rules. 

[Andreas]

Now that i think about it you could also do rotations. You could vote for who you really wanted to win one year, and the next apply the counter-intuitive strategy. Is this a stage yellow democracy? If everyone voted like this I think we would make progress a lot faster! 

[Leo Gura]

How about you just vote for the person who is most conscious and Spirally developed?

Might work better than voting for Hitler

[Andreas]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

How about you just vote for the person who is most conscious and Spirally developed?

Might work better than voting for Hitler

Yes I always thought it was the best strategy but what about collective backlashes? Wouldn’t this be more effective longterm? For example in a stage orange society like America that currently has a stage orange president. 

[Gabriel Antonio]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

How about you just vote for the person who is most conscious and Spirally developed?

Might work better than voting for Hitler

Agreed. 

[Leo Gura]

@Andreas It strikes me that your cure is worse than the disease.

[Andreas]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@Andreas It strikes me that your cure is worse than the disease.

I think that’s partly true. But the strategy could increase our collective consciousness faster on a longer timeframe. If we just have the more developed side win (let’s say green) it could take a lot of time before we arrive there because orange wasn’t fully ready for a change. 

[Leo Gura]

@Andreas By that logic we shouldn't educate children, since they are not fully ready for change, and change is stressful.

[Andreas]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Andreas By that logic we shouldn't educate children, since they are not fully ready for change, and change is stressful.

I think there is a difference between ideological values and education. 

[Aimblack]

That won't work for a few reasons. 1. It is a lot easier to break something than it is to fix or build something new. One bad election cycle can pull us back decades especially in America where there are positions that are held for life(chief justice)  if the president gets to nominate someone horrible for that position it will be around 30 years until that spot is free again. 2. There are a lot of bad decisions but just a few good ones. So the path towards higher consciousness is narrow and has to be continuously and carefully sustained by policy and government on one side and the citizens on the other side. Having a white supremacist one election cycle and then a libertarian in another cycle would hurt in the longterm. 3. Good actions can have a longer time window to show their fruits so there can be a lot of invisible damage done. Meaning that for instance dismantling a policy that could have benefited everybody in 10 years time greatly doesn't impact the lives of people now so it's hard to evaluate how much damage a system you proposed would actually cause.

[RichardY]

If someone is a mass murdering sociopath, who finds murder funny. I don't vote for them. Or those aligned with them.