The US presidential elections, despite the presence of other candidates' names on the various ballot, is in reality a binary choice. Under our current system, either the democratic or republican party nominee will be the next president. No doubt about it. So what happens when a citizen just simply can't stand either candidate and doesn't want either one to be president?

Some people decide to stay home and just not vote for either. Some decide to vote for some relatively obscure candidate on the ballot or write one in. But it seems to me that in doing so one is in practical effect forfeiting their right to determine who leads the country for the next 4 years. No matter how bad the two choices seem, one is going to be president. Do citizens have a civic responsibility (is that even a concept anymore?) to make a tough decision and choose? Or is refusing to make that choice, and thereby leaving it in the hands of others a valid approach to elections?

My thinking is that no matter how bad both candidates may be, when you start going down a list of pros and cons, somewhere down the list you will finally reach a point where one candidate gets a slightly better mark than the other on something. Or maybe it's more broadly focused, like a desire to not have all three branches of government controlled by the same party. But ultimately there should be some difference to make you hold your nose and pick one over the other.

IMO to "waste" a vote on a fringe candidate or not vote at all is shirking a responsibility all citizens should be expected to exercise.

For me it's a combination of that which has been stated, and the very small chance that my vote ends up mattering. Ultimately life is too short to vote.

The largest percentage of votes in every presidential election is people who don't vote. I didn't vote when I was young because of ignorance, then when I became informed it was clear neither party represented me. The policies are similar on most issues.

The percentage of people who abstain has shrunk after the rise of MAGA. More people are voting now as they see the contrast between fascist dictatorship and corporate oligarchy.

It's definitely much more of a statement/dangerous now to vote third party or abstain. I do agree with you that people should vote and to abstain/go third party is a cop out. That's because at this point, a vote for the Democratic candidate is a vote for democracy and to preserve America.

People who vote are hilarious.

This isn't correct if you are talking about eligible voters.

There is a reason why the worst most dictatorial and authoritative regimes, like Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Cuba, North Korea-- all still hold elections.

Browser,

I think it depends. If both candidates were bad enough, your logic wouldn't hold.

If one major party candidate was running on a platform of rounding up all "undesirables" and drowning them in the Pacific Ocean, and the other major party candidate wanted to round up the same group and kill them by lethal injection because it was more humane, I would not cast an affirmative vote for either candidate, regardless of whether I agreed that lethal injection was more humane.

Because it is a propaganda exercise?

Just like in the West.

I bet there's a reason low-info people keep discouraging me from voting.

Voting for a third party is difficult in many states as it is so hard to get on the ballot . I am not sure how many states Cornel West and Marianne Williamson are on

Both parties have made it difficult and the Dems even going further trying to use the courts to keep No Labels off the ticket

If there was any year that two candidates on the No Labels have a shot it would have to be this year. Though I can only think of a few names that might have an impact and could win

I know in Canada and Europe there are many parties in each country.

Ironically voters are some of the dumbest people I've come across.

And I've never met anyone who said something like "why bothering voting both parties are corrupt" who didn't at least have some sort of clue.

I really, really, really know some people you should meet.

yea that one is funny. everyone is voting...
they cannot all be dumb.

It isn't as hard as you make out. I believe that the Libertarian Party has been on the ballot in all 50 states for my entire adult life. Probably the Green Party as well. Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states in 1992.

None of this is true at all: the major parties have zero ability to stop fringe grifter morons from getting on the ballot, NoLabels has no shot because it has zero constituency. And anyway, you would smash the button so hard for Trump that it's a moot point; I don't know why you care.

I mispoke. What I meant was: the majority vote, but if you split into a pie chart: R, D, Didn't vote. Didn't vote is biggest slice.

This had been true for decades but was actually not the case in 2020 with turnout being much higher than previous years. Of 239.2 million eligible voters 79.6 million didn't vote and 81.2 million voted Dem in 2020.

The latter, yes, the former, no - especially if you live in one of the many states that's never going to flip.

Ridiculous, but not surprising given the source. The mentality that those who take the lazy and dismissive way out tend to be the smarter ones is very on brand.

You must be a voter.

I'm a bit perturbed that my successful vote to keep daylight savings has been a giant go **** yourself so far.

It's arse over tit

Voting for someone we dont want is the cop out. Democracy and voting are extremely imporrtant and powerful but only if people use their vote to stand up and be counted for what they want. Sometimes that may mean not voting or writing something in but it can't work if we vote for what we dont want.

The real political pressure on biden and his policy over gaza for example by people not voting for him is massive compared to anything else anyone can do. Similarly in the UK. This needs to be the norm for the heart and soul of our parties - appeasment of the nutty right by voting for the noit quite as bad has been catastrophic.

Also we mustn't confuse the apthetic with those determined to vote for what they want. The former are irrelevent, the later are the people the politicians are desperate to adjust to.

I have abstained from voting since 2008 but realize that is a mistake and should have been voting 3rd party. If a 3rd party candidate can get some % of the popular vote it at least sends a message that people are out there voting, just not for you two.
Hopefully that would mean they would shift their platform somewhere to capture those voters in key states but that's probably just a euphemism for they'll come up with some new lies for votes as they line their pockets.

Many people might believe that it doesn't matter which of the two main candidates win; their lives will not change either way. If that is your belief, not voting is logical.

The rhetoric that anyone on the left is a commie and anyone on the right is a fascist which has been common in US political discourse probably since the Dubya days (if not before) has unfortunately inured much of the US voting public to these terms. As such, when there is a real danger of an actual fascist getting into power, everyone doesn't get it already just shrugs the warnings off as "leftist hysteria". It's the age old story of the boy who cried wolf.