then it is your civic duty to vote for trump

think the election turnout will be much lower than expected , they will obviously have kamala or gavin pushing a different agenda to try to reverse this.

You know trump gives our secrets to Russia and we lose all of our intelligence assets

Bobo - I agree with this and almost everything you have written on the topic. All I am saying is that in reality, many people see no difference - either for themselves, the country, or the world - on who gets elected. They act accordingly. They are voting in a way. Their vote is "doesn't matter". To me, while incorrect, it's a legitimate choice (just as I think a vote for Trump is wrong, but people have the right to do it) .

Giving legitimacy to an illegitimate system matters

It's why all dictatorships hold elections. In previous times people could just revolt when they weren't happy with their government. Now they're told to wait a few years and try for a new one that never comes.

I actually agree with this in terms of election theory in general. What got me wondering about the "wasted vote" thing was specifically the conditions I laid out in the OP, ie a US presidential election in a 2 party system so strong that it is guaranteed one of two candidates will win. So voting for a third party candidate with absolutely no possibility of winning, while possibly having some symbolic meaning, is de facto the same as not voting.

Shirking a responsibility was a poorly worded phrase for what my thoughts are. But it's a sense that if given a ballot that has 4 names on it, and being told you can vote for any of them, but 100% of the time only number 1 or 2 can actually become president that voting for 3 or 4 is, in a way, the same as sitting out the election and abandoning your ability to help decide whobecomes potus.

It is not the same as not voting. The future of politics in a democracy is shaped by those whose vote is there to be won but cannot be taken for granted

Giving up that key role in a democracy is shirking responsibility.

Fair enough, and it's of course something they have a right to do. I suppose I'm just expressing a desire for them to learn more and vote for someone, anyone! I think those who frustrate me most in this regard are people who have a deep interest in politics, yet don't vote.

This is a terrible way to look at it IMO, for two reasons. First of all, you're telling people who are deeply unhappy with their choices and can see no reason to vote one over the other that they shouldn't attempt to register their dissatisfaction, but instead should just sit at home and not register their discontent, adding themselves to the growing number of people that are often interpreted (wrongly in this case) to be disinterested in politics. Secondly, it's telling people who don't like the existing system that they should simply give up. While I can't say that change will happen by people voting third party, I know that if everyone were to follow this guidance, there will never, ever be change.

I don't think I said anywhere that anyone should stay at home. My premise is just that no matter how bad the two candidates are, if you drill down deep enough you will find something that dips the scale, however slightly, to one or another. In our 2 party system the differences on certain issues are always present. So, for example, to say that Biden is too old and Trump is too criminal so I'm not voting for either is, imo, the same as saying I'll just let others determine who is president, which in turn determines things like scotus justices or whether a bill passed in congress needs enough votes to override a potus veto or not. So I'm our particular two party system more is at stake then just registering dissatisfaction with the two individuals.


I think change tends to slowly work its way up from the bottom, starting with one or a couple of candidates from a third party winning a seat in congress. Then, possibly a few more, and then at some point a center of mass is created where a third party candidate can begin to register on the national level. But I don't think simply writing in someone or voting for an obscure third party in a presidential election accomplishes anything.

But as I said I understand the protest vote aspect of voting third party for president. I just think in our system you are just making a symbolic gesture that means others will determine the winner.

That premise is correct. Your response to it - which is very common - makes their best strategy to be extremely negative about the other side while appearing not quite as bad as them.

That's what we have. It's a disaster. No point blaming them for using the best strategy - the problem is voters using such a catastrophically bad one.

We really need rank choice voting but both parties would lobby hard against it

If more people voted for a third party, maybe it would become a thing. I think it's reasonable to do that and push the movement. Not voting is each persons choice. Frankly I'd prefer people not vote rather than casting a vote they don't understand just for the sake of voting

We all like to think we would make some moral stand at some point. Few do. From your posting I don't see you as one of those few. I think that, no matter how bad the candidates, you would find some obscure, speculative difference making the candidate of you established party worth voting for.

I don't agree with Aaron Bushnell's actions, but I think he made a compelling observation when he wrote

If you are voting for either of these dominant parties this election then, believe me, there is no limit to the immorality which you will endorse- absolutely no limit. I would even take it a step further and claim that anyone who votes Democrat or Republican would, were they alive in Nazi Germany, be doing the bellamy salute at every opportunity. And the entire time they were a Nazi, no matter what the Nazis did, they would believe that they have morals and are a good person - no different than how you do now.

The best reason to vote your conscience is it feels good. Secondarily, a vote for a third party registers a lot louder than others and puts a lot more pressure per vote on politicians than do the votes they take for granted. We've seen this with the Republicans who are far more stubborn and exercise discipline over their leadership by being stubborn and showing a willingness to walk.

So, you truly believe there are no significant differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, and that both of them are just as bad as the Nazis were?

If so, you must know that is an extreme minority opinion, and that others likely have what they consider to be good reasons for preferring one to the other, so the fact that they vote for one of them does not prove that they have no morals.

in many states, the winner is already known before you vote, that's a good opportunity for a third party vote if you have problems with "your" candidate even if you believe one is far better than the other, but still bad.

you can also still vote your (ie the party you consider less bad) party candidates for other roles in the rest of the ballot as a further signal

This has nothing to do with my questions to the person who claimed both major US parties are the equivalent of Nazis.

he didnt claim that. reread his post.

Do you believe that if you vote for the republican party, then you would endorse the raping of all kids in society, including your neightbours, all kids in your kid school and so on? because that's literally what "there is no limit to the immorality which you will endorse- absolutely no limit" would mean.

If instead he meant "no limit to the immortality which you will endorse on a far away outgroup", it is still false, but less so.

Do you guys on the radical left even vaguely know the meaning of words? no limit to the immorality means there is absolutely no action, done to the person you care most about, you wouldn't endorse.

That's impossible for the vast majority of people, the sickest hyperbole you could concoct.

And frankly getting told that if you vote for Biden, then you would endorse castrating all men who don't (another "limitless immorality" example, among countless others), is grotesque.

Why do you guys even waste time talking with others who you think would endorse the most evil actions imaginable agaisnt their own family?

right, its a hypothetical. and ofc I agree with him.

You agree a person who votes democrat would necessarily endorse the burning at the stake of his whole family for heresy if the state said so?

The only people who actually en masse endorsed that kind of actions against members of their families were the marxists, in history.

Agreed
I mean do the math. How many innocents has the US DoD killed since 1942? It’s not an extreme minority position. Have you even read a people’s history? Listened to Chomsky?

More or less they are. Depends on the metric you use

The way the system is structured will stop this.

IMO the biggest problem with voting behavior in USA is that so many people are willing to vote for “the lesser evil.” It creates a situation where parties have little incentive to nominate candidates who represent the interests of the public. Parties can trot anybody out there knowing that the election will be close to a coin flip.

Ferguson’s investment theory of political economy is the most plausible election theory I’ve heard. The reason it works is because voters are so easily “bought.” If voters were more willing to withhold their vote from these terrible candidates then maybe we’d see some better options in future cycles.