Voting is using a share of power borne of your citizenship to express a political preference. I too used to think of voting as more of an obligation, but it really isn’t. It is a choice. If you’re staring down two candidates you don’t want to vote for and nobody in the 3rd parties is worth registering even a protest vote through, it is entirely reasonable to choose not to vote at all.

All the rhetoric that exists to try and drive/guilt people into the ballot box exists for the purpose of trying to get more people to turn out for their preferred candidate.

I’m not stating this as a treatise on political science or theory or the rights and obligations of the citizenry or any other high-minded ideal: come November 6th, one of either Donald Trump or whoever the democrats pick to run will be the president elect, and for the next 4 years, they will be president. What you decide to do with that fact is up to you, and your justifications are your own, but come November 6th, Donald Trump will be the president elect or Kamala or whoever the democrats pick. Those are the two potential outcomes. Talk yourself into whatever you want, just don’t convince yourself there’s a third choice.

I'd like to see RFK get enough support to get into debates officially. Supporting him might be considered by most to be a wasted vote, but is it if it changes the discourse? I'm Canadian btw, no horse in this race.

I really want to like RFK but find myself only agreeing with him on a few topics. That said, I also really want to see more people viewing a third party as a legitimate option that isn't a wasted vote.

I'd argue that most votes are wasred given that most states are solidly aligned with one party or another. I happen to live in a strongly Republican state, making every ballot I've cast for Democrats effectively meaningless.

> Talk yourself into whatever you want, just don’t convince yourself there’s a third choice.

Literally nobody here is doing that.

From the context of a voter, I would argue that your scensrio ignores the actual choice to be made. I can choose to support Trump, Harris (if that's who they pick), or neither. The third option is absolutely a choice if you view your vote as a vote of support rather than a vote for the lesser of two evils.

As a voter, you have an infinite choice of actions. There's a "write in" line - you can cast your vote for literally anyone who's ever lived, any fictional character, anyone or anything you want. You can cast no vote, you can write a treatise on the ballot about voter choice, you can tear the ballot in half dramatically in front of all nearby. You can choose to do whatever you want. Whatever action you choose to take and however you view it, there will be one of two outcomes the day after.

I think by third choice he meant an outcome other than Trump or the Democratic nominee (presumed Harris, I guess?) winning this election. One of them will definitely win and the other will definitely lose; I’m with you that they don’t have to do it with our votes specifically.

Voting is absolutely an obligation for any democratic society. Abstaining provides no kind of signal or message to the body politic.

Elections occurring and people voting in them is necessary for the continuance of a democratic society. The actions of individuals who are qualified to vote within said democratic society choosing not to vote does not nullify this.

> Abstaining provides no kind of signal or message to the body politic.

This is true and irrelevant. Not wanting to spend the (rounding up) 10 seconds to glance at and fill out the Presidential portion of a ballot nor waste the ink from your pen to do so before dropping it in the post simply because you do not like any of the viable candidates enough to do so (or for any other reason) is a personal affair.

> Not wanting to spend the (rounding up) 10 seconds to glance at and fill out the Presidential portion of a ballot nor waste the ink from your pen to do so before dropping it in the post simply because you do not like any of the viable candidates enough to do so (or for any other reason) is a personal affair.

In the same way that not helping at the scene of an automobile accident is a personal affair, I suppose, yes.

I mean if you fail a logic check and treat equally an automobile accident with a cavalcade of knuckleheads running to acquire power, you are absolutely correct.

Just not in this reality.

This is an infantile perspective on society and government. Be better.

You have yet to make an actual argument, only gesticulate in the general direction that you think it is problematic for people to choose not to vote in every election on every ticket. This is not a well developed position, only one that is reinforced by bad rhetoric and dogma.

Abstaining can show the lack of faith in the limited options given. If a meaningful number of voters stay home it can signal that (a) there are voters to be won if the existing parties change and (b) voters are fed up with the status quo and may be open to a third party option.

Abstaining does not demonstrate what you think it does in the electoral system we have in place in the US.

And yet it's exactly this fear of voters abstaining which just ousted Biden as nominee.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. It's incoherent.

Read some other comments in this large thread, maybe it will click for you.

Taken to the extreme, if the two candidates were Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler would you still feel that every voter must accept that litation and vote in support of one of them?

By no means am I saying that is our situation today, but your view of how voters must decide leaves absolutely no room for voters to decide that neither option is acceptable.

I'm not arguing that voters must do anything. I'm saying that there are two possible outcomes on November 6th, and that to pretend otherwise - to pretend that your vote, or lack of vote, or protest vote, or whatever else leads to anything but one of those two possible outcomes is a fantasy. All of the work to change the options happens before the vote, not during it.

And no, your ludicrous example doesn't change that.

The example isn't ludicrous, it's playing out the worst case and asking whether you still believe that voters must choose to support what they see as the least bad option.

You literally said that voters should pick which of the two options seem best. So again, if given the choice of Hitler and Himmler should voters be held to that standard? If not, is it reasonable for voters to disagree with the vote and choose not to be party to it?

The correct answer is that responsible voters should work to change a broken voting system.

Such an dilemma doesn't occur in a Washminster system with preferential voting, that it does in the antiquated US election system is damning.

I totally agree with you here. I would support almost any Congressional candidate that I believe to honestly want to push through a change in this direction to our electoral system. For now I just don't see Congress actually considering such a fundamental change to our electoral system, its rare enough that they pass a budget on time.

I have sometimes voted write-in for fictional characters, in races where all the candidates really are just that bad.

For president specifically, I usually vote for the least obnoxious or most amusing third party.

If neither option is acceptable, you should be doing a lot more than boycotting the vote. Anyway, extreme hypotheticals are distractions.

I'm not totally familiar with Himmler's exact beliefs and plans - but if say, he was almost as bad but not quite as bad as Hitler, then I would certainly be voting for him instead of Hitler. I would hope every other voter did the same. I can understand if someone wasn't able to actually tell the difference between such awful candidates - but aside from that, it seems illogical not to vote in the lesser of two evils.