Not voting is also a choice, however it means you leave the results over to a vocal minority; remember that there were only 537 votes difference in Florida between Bush and Gore in 2000; that's a tiny margin, which could easily have gone the other way (and with it pretty much everything that happened after 9/11) if only the people that were like "I'm not voting because the system is broken" had actually gone and voted.

I mean the system IS broken, but choosing not to participate doesn't help. If you do want to protest, vote blank. If you don't vote, you're participating in the idea that democracy doesn't work and should be replaced with a different system.

Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the least worst. The US-flavored democracy is broken but needs the right people to get voted in to change it.

I wish every ballot had for every office or position, the option to choose no confidence in any of the ballot choices. Then we could not only see who got the most votes we could see how many people have no confidence in any of the options or candidates. And hopefully if too large of a portion chose no confidence then we get a redo in a month with different candidates. Or something like that.

Add along with that ranked choice voting of some sort. Of course, they'll never allow this as then they couldn't have third party candidates to siphon off votes off of the opposing party's nominee.

You may want to research your State election law for major/minor party. That is how the two party system in USA is perpetuated. Of course the Ds and Rs, and TV, will not tell you about it.

> I wish every ballot had for every office or position, the option to choose no confidence in any of the ballot choices.

If you factor in eligible non-voters, then "neither Democrat nor Republican" wins almost every election in the US. For example, Biden got 51.3% of the vote with 66.6% turnout, which is only 34% of eligible voters. Now ask yourself how many of those 34% were truly enthusiastic about Biden, and how many were just voting against Trump.

What you say is correct. However, how many non-voters don't bother because their voice is lost. If they have the chance to be heard (that they have no confindence in the choices) maybe more will turn out to vote?

I was agreeing with you about the no confidence vote. I was just trying to underline the point, that voters have no confidence in the choices.

> there were only 537 votes difference in Florida between Bush and Gore in 2000

I think you're missing the point, which is that neither candidate was truly representative of the public interest. Just like neither Biden nor Trump is truly representative of the public interest. People hold their nose and vote for the lesser evil, but that's not what people want.

The OP said "it probably averages out that half time you're not getting who you vote for and the the other half of the time you're not getting what you voted for". In other words, even if your candidate wins, you lose.

The vocal minority are those that have bought the power.

I choose not to take part.

I'll do what I have to to not get terrorised by these people but otherwise I'm done. My family and I will explore our lives with the rest of humanity but no more am I taking serious the dictates of these power structures.

Amd democracy is not necessarily the best that is, like everything else, nothing more than propaganda.

That’s democracy you don’t get what you want because you are not the only citizen, you vote for your interests so that they are represented when discussing. Seems childish “I don’t get what I want so I don’t play at all” no?

There are some people who oppose corporate welfare for example to say one of the point you made

> I don’t get what I want so I don’t play at all” no

It’s not “I don’t get what I want so I don’t play” it’s “The outcome doesn’t change if I play or don’t, so I’ll just live my life and do something else”.

I can tell you exactly which party is going to win local elections near me, and in many cases which candidate because I know the demographics and general zeitgeist of the area. If I’m part of that zeitgeist, it doesn’t matter if I vote or note because I get the outcome I want either way. If I’m not, then it also doesn’t matter because no action by me is going to magically change anything. In national election, I have no interest in picking between thing 1 and thing 2, they’ll both fuck me over anyway, perhaps in different way.

Maybe if you live in a highly contested swing state or area it’s worth it to vote.

Well, but look at this from this angle: now those individuals and families have more or less peaceful power-transfer game to play (which also brings some marginal improvements in life quality to you and me in the process) instead of, you know, civil wars and political assassinations.

USA had that until a former President was indicted to rabid cheering. Even Nixon was pardoned. Peaceful power transition may have ended.

It is but history shows that all the alternatives to that game are horribly worst.

Well, what about the ancient Greek version of "democracy" where magistrates were appointed by a uniform random choice? That would also improve diversity of the public officials, you know? As opposed to that Roman "republic" thing that had magistrates elected by majority voting.

It starts to make sense really. The thing is that humanity needs to figure out what's the system that optimizes freedom and well being for most at the same time that keep psychopaths and evil players at bay (under 2% and out of power or controlling positions). Scalable to multi-culture 7 billion individuals.

Oh you better not be slanderin' my heckin' democracy!

Truth is a defense against slander in the US. ;)

Slander is spoken defamation, and defamation is by definition untrue statements.

So Truth isn't really a defense against a slander allegation; it's a refutation of that allegation. If the spoken words are true, they can't be defamatory, so they can't be slander.

I don't know the fine, legal distinction between a refutation and a defense, but it seems like they're quite close.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation#:~:text=Truth%20i....

You can refute a statement or proposition (which might be an allegation of wrongdoing). You can mount a defense without refuting any allegation; for example, it's usually a defense to any allegation to say that "It wasn't me", without claiming that the event didn't happen.

In the UK, it's usually a defense to say that the act was justified, even if it happened and you did it. I think it's usually a defense to claim that you had no choice.

I suppose my persnickety comment was to the effect that if the claim is true, then there was no slander; you aren't innocent or guilty, because the alleged act simply didn't happen.

I have found that voting on local city and county does have impact. And leaving the federal races unvoted shows my choice of none of the above.

Did you have actually have a local election decided by one vote? If not then your vote didn’t change the outcome

Not me. It's usually vote for the person on the ballot or not at all. Either way, the person wins and could not care less what my stance is. In the rare instances there is a choice, the ordained person usually wins. In the even rarer case the non-ordained person wins, they flip and carry on the status quo they claimed to be fighting.

"I never vote - don't vote" is a dysfunctional world view.

> We don't choose anything. I voted once over 20 years ago.

Black folks who now don't have to sit in the back of the bus and gay folks who are now allowed to be married would likely disagree with you.

Wasn’t gay marriage primarily driven by courts?

Yes. California voted down gay marriage with Prop 8 in 2008.

Who determines who is on the courts? It all comes back to voting.