You should have wrote 'voting: the art of picking the lesser of two evils' IMO. It would have fit the content better. I was thinking at first you were talking about politicians and their decisions.

Anyway, the best thing to do is vote for the party whose values more closely match your own, not expect specific policies. It is better to vote for the better candidates than the ones which claim to support specific issues. I vote for the green party in New Zealand not because I specifically like their policies but because I like their values and the way they conduct themselves. You'll see time and again politicians being either unable or unwilling to actually follow through with their promises.

I don't think it's quite that bad over here, but then again, the situation in switzerland is a special one... because we don't have 1 man/woman on the top, but 7, and those aren't really on top anyway, because we have direct democracy (for the most part).... which means, the people get to vote about every important subject anyway.

Perhaps I should have. It may have been a bit clearer. But I meant politics in a more personal way, kind of like what the word politics means to me in this sense.

As for your second part, that is effectively what I did in the end, I voted for the party whose values most closely matched my own, but I still wasn't happy about voting for them.

I decided a few months ago that if I vote for the lesser of two evils, I am still supporting evil - just a lesser kind.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is like saying "I don't like murders, but child molesters? Thats fine."

So what I am doing is the following:

• Voting in primaries only for the candidates I know/approve of, because I can agree with a significant amount of their platform
• Voting in general elections only for the candidates I know/approve of.

If they do not meet my criteria, I will not vote for them. If no one appropriate is available, I will not cast a vote at all.

Fortunately, in America, we have a coherent, unified Libertarian Party which fielded candidates in every federal/statewide election in my state, which allowed me to vote for them when there hasn't been a Big Two candidate that I can agree with. None won, but they are closer to getting state/fed funding for elections, which will make them viable in the future. Ross Perot almost did it in 1992 without a backing party, so I think the LP can do it in a few years if the Dems and Republicans continue to screw up America.

here in Brazil you vote for the one who "steals, but builds". because the other one will steal, but might not build.