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.