Is not voting a valid way to express your political position?

[LetThereBe]

The point seems simple and unavoidable to me. If both candidates are wholly unappealing, than you have enter into a pick-your-poison scenario. Whom do you like the least? Who is it that you least want to see running your country? Surely one of them is more detestable than the other, right?

I on principle will not "pick my poison". If my choices are between a candidate that wants to end due process and a candidate that wants to end freedom of religion, I cannot morally vote for either. I am diametrically opposed to both.
I'll admit that it isn't exactly pragmatic, but I will not willfully participate in the erosion of American liberties.

I have had to make this call a few times. One in particular was in 2000. To simply sit on my hands and do nothing while complaining seemed counter intuitive at best. I voted for Bush and then I watched as he entered us into a ridiculous, pointless war that rages to this day.

BUT....I can bitch about my choice because I made a choice.

If you had abstained then it would have been better than if you had not voted at all (assuming you consider the pointless wars a worse tradeoff than what we otherwise would have gotten).
If I have to choose between losing one essential freedom vs another essential freedom, I will refuse to lend my support to either and I will STILL complain that ANY of my essential freedoms are being taken from me.

Those with the "I'm not sure which is worse, coin-flip to decide" mentality are a danger to democracy. The choice should belong to the informed and the passionate. The ignorant and the apathetic pollute the process with their influence.

[ruksak]

I'll admit that it isn't exactly pragmatic, but I will not willfully participate in the erosion of American liberties.

Liberties like the freedom to vote?

One of them is going to win. You have to make a choice. Your not voting isn't going to change that fact. Instead, you have chosen to default the effort to others. I guess this relieves you of some feeling of guilt or responsibility? How noble of you.


"It's not my fault, I didn't vote".

[LetThereBe]

Liberties like the freedom to vote?

One of them is going to win. You have to make a choice. Your not voting isn't going to change that fact. Instead, you have chosen to default the effort to others. I guess this relieves you of some feeling of guilt or responsibility? How noble of you.

I never said it was noble, just that it is a legitimate position to have.

There are some values that I just won't support. There are some decisions that I openly admit I don't (and often cannot) make a decision what is worse (needless wars or loss of liberty?)

Can't you at least admit that there are theoretically things that you would likely refuse to decide between? If the mob decided to murder one of your two children would you throw your vote in as well? If you didn't, would you still have justification to complain that the mob killed EITHER of your children?

"It's not my fault, I didn't vote".

That's not what I'm saying at all. Rather it is:
"It's not my fault, I was never given an acceptable option."

[Cephus]

If I have to choose between losing one essential freedom vs another essential freedom, I will refuse to lend my support to either and I will STILL complain that ANY of my essential freedoms are being taken from me.

Nope, if you're going to lose that freedom regardless, whether you lend your support or not is irrelevant. The outcome is the same.

[ruksak]

I never said it was noble, just that it is a legitimate position to have.

Honestly I don't find it to be a legitimate position to deny a sacred right of our own countries freedom based on political indifference.

Can't you at least admit that there are theoretically things that you would likely refuse to decide between?

Sure, but in this case I find analogies to be distracting.

I will add that I used to abstain from voting based on my own disdain for the candidates. After awhile I realized the repugnant nature of my protestation.

"It's not my fault, I was never given an acceptable option."

This reeks of self-entitlement.

[LetThereBe]

Nope, if you're going to lose that freedom regardless, whether you lend your support or not is irrelevant. The outcome is the same.

Yes, lending my support would not change the outcome... so what is gained by lending my support?
I refuse to "pick my poison". If I am going to die either way and they seem more or less equally painful, I'm not going to lend my credence to the process or unfair options.

I say keep that voter turn-out low in these cases, and let the powers that be know that the American people do not actually support either plate of bullshit they are being served.

[LetThereBe]

Honestly I don't find it to be a legitimate position to deny a sacred right of our own countries freedom based on political indifference.

I don't deny the right to vote. I just choose not to exercise.
Indeed, you do not actually have a right unless you also have an alternative. The right to speech requires the right to silence. The right to religion includes the right to skepticism.

This reeks of self-entitlement.

Haha... as much as "I checked a box based on a coin-flip, so my opinion matters and yours doesn't"?
I see no self-entitlement here. I have no control over the options. How can it be my fault that what I was presented was unacceptable?

[ruksak]

I don't deny the right to vote. I just choose not to exercise.
Indeed, you do not actually have a right unless you also have an alternative. The right to speech requires the right to silence. The right to religion includes the right to skepticism.

This argument would suffice if we were discussing whether or not voting should be mandatory by law. Of course you have the right to withhold your vote. As well, I have the right to proclaim that people who don't vote have no voice.

Haha... as much as "I checked a box based on a coin-flip, so my opinion matters and yours doesn't"?

I never suggested to cast a vote "based on a coin-flip". I suggested that rarely are you going to be offered a candidate that fully meets your ideals. I suggested that if put in a position whereas you're looking for the lesser of two evils, one should do so carefully and in as educated a manner as possible. Whatever you do, do something. Sticking your head in the sand only gets you dirty. However, to pull your head from the sand and bitch about what occurred whilst your head was buried, is ridiculous.

I suppose if the two candidates were Stalin and Hitler....I would vote for a revolution.

[LetThereBe]

This argument would suffice if we were discussing whether or not voting should be mandatory by law. Of course you have the right to withhold your vote. As well, I have the right to proclaim that people who don't vote have no voice.

Of course you do. You can also claim that people who don't like pepper-jack cheese have no voice, or that people with red hair have no voice. You have the right to proclaim all sorts of crazy things. You are entitled to your opinion.
It would just be in... good taste?... to realize that others are entitled to their opinions as well, even if they didn't decide to choose between two bullshit options.

I never suggested to cast a vote "based on a coin-flip". I suggested that rarely are you going to be offered a candidate that fully meets your ideals. I suggested that if put in a position whereas you're looking for the lesser of two evils, one should do so carefully and in as educated a manner as possible. Whatever you do, do something. Sticking your head in the sand only gets you dirty. However to pull your head from the sand and bitch about what occurred whilst your head was buried, is ridiculous.

I suppose if the two candidates were Stalin and Hitler....I would vote for a revolution.

You are saying that the prerequisite for being able to "bitch" is voting. You aren't saying that the prerequisite was doing research, being informed, being passionate, or being right. Just... voting. It doesn't matter if you were wrong with your vote. It doesn't matter if the candidate stood for the exact opposite of what you thought. According to you it just matters that you vote and you then have the right to complain. That means it may be no better than a coin flip.

Sometimes "doing something" is worse than nothing. Remember that war that George Bush started? He claimed to have a MANDATE from the people based on the outcome of the election. He is saying his bad policies are justified because of the people that voted for him. If he had still won but had only gotten 10% of the populace to actually vote for him, how much of a mandate would that be?

[Cephus]

Yes, lending my support would not change the outcome... so what is gained by lending my support?
I refuse to "pick my poison". If I am going to die either way and they seem more or less equally painful, I'm not going to lend my credence to the process or unfair options.

I say keep that voter turn-out low in these cases, and let the powers that be know that the American people do not actually support either plate of bullshit they are being served.

I really couldn't care less what you support. If you want to stay home, so be it. Doesn't bother me in the least. The fact remains that one person is going to be elected and, whether you voted for them or not, you are going to live under their rule. It makes no sense to whine about it if you can't even be bothered to participate.

[LetThereBe]

I really couldn't care less what you support. If you want to stay home, so be it. Doesn't bother me in the least. The fact remains that one person is going to be elected and, whether you voted for them or not, you are going to live under their rule. It makes no sense to whine about it if you can't even be bothered to participate.

It makes perfect sense.

Option A is unacceptable, and I will whine about it if it is chosen.
Option B is unacceptable, and I will whine about it if it is chosen.
Other options, if they exist at all, are completely unfeasible.

If my participation could bring about an outcome that I approve of, then I agree. I would have no cause to whine if I did not participate. That is not the case, however.

[JimmyNic]

The trouble with the "pick your poison" idea is that it is the foundation block for two-party systems. The idea of there only being two candidates who stand a chance only exists if the majority agree to it. If more people voted with their conscience and not tactically it would bring about an end to the duopoly that many democracies suffer.

I actually think that all election forms should include a category at the bottom labelled "None of the above".