Does Not Voting Send a Worthwhile Message

[Anonymous]

In this particular election, it might make sense.

If you are a conservative and you and your friends do not turn out, it will send a pretty clear message that Trump's position on immigrants, Muslims, and people of color -- i.e. a return to Nativism --is a fatally flawed direction for the GOP.

If you are a Dem, not voting will be very hard to interpret. It might mean you wanted a more radical left agenda. Or it may mean that you thought Hillary was unlikable or not trustworthy. So you are saying "don't bring us another Hillary" but no one will know what kind of policy direction you actually want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you would have preferred a situation in which the president wasn't elected by popular vote but installed by the legislature?

Are you at all aware of how democracy works?

Yes, o&d course I know. But this year our candidate are so terrible, that IF either major candidate does not win a majority, Kaisxh is preferable.

[Anonymous]

If neither party gets it - congress decides and we get a Republican this go around, correct?

[Anonymous]

On what planet will "neither party get it"? Someone WILL win this election with milions of votes. Your missing ballot will simply be lumped with the other millions who don't care enough to participate in this democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think so. Voting for Gary Johnson would though.

Isn't he the guy that wants to voucherize public schools and is against sensible climate regulation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In this particular election, it might make sense.

If you are a conservative and you and your friends do not turn out, it will send a pretty clear message that Trump's position on immigrants, Muslims, and people of color -- i.e. a return to Nativism --is a fatally flawed direction for the GOP.

If you are a Dem, not voting will be very hard to interpret. It might mean you wanted a more radical left agenda. Or it may mean that you thought Hillary was unlikable or not trustworthy. So you are saying "don't bring us another Hillary" but no one will know what kind of policy direction you actually want.

That's exactly where I am. I'm Republican, and if we had even a halfway decent candidate, I'd obviously vote for him over HRC, who I think is just terrible. But I just cannot see myself pulling the lever for Trump, and if the Dems had a halfway decent candidate, I'd vote for her. (I've voted D before, albeit rarely). But I just can't see myself voting for HRC, either. So, I'm stuck - as are many, many, many people who share this view - and am considering third-party for the first time in my life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On what planet will "neither party get it"? Someone WILL win this election with milions of votes. Your missing ballot will simply be lumped with the other millions who don't care enough to participate in this democracy.

OP here: By neither party "getting it," that could happen if a strong third-party candidate wins enough states to keep either of the other two from cracking the 270 electoral college majority. Also, I wasn't talking about not voting st all, I was talking about voting for third-party, explained in the post itself. (I wish I could edit my title...I admit it's not clear from the title.)

[Anonymous]

All this talk about Kasich is hilarious. The man won ONE primary. He got less than 1/3 as many votes as Trump. He was as marginal a candidate as any of the other 16.

I get that he's your favorite, but newsflash: He lost. Move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If neither party gets it - congress decides and we get a Republican this go around, correct?

Yes....since the House is Republican, it's safe to assume their choose Reoublican. That would happen only in the unlikely event that neither major candidate wins an electoral college majority. I think it's happened only once or twice in history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this talk about Kasich is hilarious. The man won ONE primary. He got less than 1/3 as many votes as Trump. He was as marginal a candidate as any of the other 16.

I get that he's your favorite, but newsflash: He lost. Move on.

Yeah, but that was because of the primary Republican voters. In the general, the independents - who make up about 40% of the electorate and are by and large unhappy with both major candidates - could toss him a few states. Potentially, it could make a difference. But, not to be.....

[Anonymous]

And Bernie could still win, if only no one except Bernie supporters voted and they all took the time to write him in! It can happen! Yes we can!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just really, really have a hard time that folks can say they think that one of the presential options is not truly worse than the other. I think people are too quick to dismiss the idea of there being real choice between "lesser of two evils." That sets up that there is clearly one option that IS worse.

If one is worse, you want to do whatever it takes to avoid that "most evil" choice to be elected.
Four years is a long time.

+1. Unless you really believe in Johnson or Jill Stein, it is a binary choice. Trump and Clinton are very different candidates. One of them will be POTUS.I think the idea of a "protest" vote is silly and makes no impact.

In a related topic, a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters are naturally attracted to Jill Stein because she is the Green Party candidate, but people really need to research her actual positions. She is a terrible candidate for POTUS.

[Anonymous]

I love that in our supposed democracy, people are telling people not to vote 3rd party or independent. That's the whole point of having a democratic system.

We do not "have no choice" but to choose from between the two AWFUL mainstream candidates. I think it would be great/historic for our country to stand up and say NO to the garbage the Democratic and Republican parties put forward for candidates this year. I'd love to see a historic voice coming through from the electorate in our lifetime instead of us all acting like sheep when millions are clearly unhappy with the two mainstream choices.

Now we just need someone decent to step forward as an independent.

[Anonymous]

Not voting is not sending a message or protesting. It's removing any chance to take part in the process & any right to complain about the outcome. And it's shirking your responsibilities as a citizen and disrespecting all those who fought long and hard for everyone to be allowed to vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Better to vote for the third-party candidate then. It means your vote will be counted, and also if the third party gets X% (varies by state) in that state, they qualify for federal funding next election or something like that. I think Nader got it for the green party in a state or two when he ran his bid a few years ago.

This is what angers me.

40% of voters are unaffiliated. I switched from Dem to unaffiliated a few days ago.

The independents have grown over the years b/c many are disillusioned with the system. Only 20 states allow them to vote in primaries. I recently read where 9% decided on Clinton or Trump during the primaries.

9%

We have only ourselves to blame.

I am voting 3rd party, too.

And I cannot believe how rabid people become when you point out flaws in both platforms. These supporters take critiques personally and then automatically think you're rooting for "the opposition."

lol! doesn't surprise me that they make up the 9%
not one bit