Does Not Voting Send a Worthwhile Message

[Anonymous]

We have two horrible presidential candidates, both of whom are so fatally flawed that neither should be president. (They're each flawed in different ways.) Aa much as I am sickened that these are our choices, I've told myself that one of the two will be president and I should pick the one who is less reprehensible. (The old "lesser of two evils" thing.)

However, this election really is different, and many (many!) people I've spoken to, including highly intelligent, well-educated voters who have not missed an election in their lives, tell me that they will either knowingly throw their vote away on a third-party or write-in to send a message - that these candidates are not whom we support for our president, and in doing so, the ultimate winner will know that he/she has weak support from the country and will feel less inclined to rule by executive action (as both Trump and HRC have indicated). These voters will, of course, vote downticket.

Csn we have a polite discussion about this, without resorting to calls of racist and idiot? As I said, I have never heard so many people tell me theyre so disgusted with our choices that they're considering not voting.

P.S. Too bad Kasich couldn't stay in the race.

[Anonymous]

No. So many people don't vote normally; you'd just be added to them.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Well, my MIL and her well-heeled, Republican friends refused to vote for W. the second time around b/c of the Iraq war. Some of their reservist kids actually had to go fight. Well, he still won.

They didn't "send a message." They just refused that they had voted for an idiot in the first place.

You may not like either candidate, but if Kasich wouldn't stand with Trump as his VP, I doubt he's voting for him.

[Anonymous]

I think it's a waste not to vote and I think it is dangerous to vote 3rd party. If enough people do this it could cause us to end up with Trump.

I think you have to decide what you can live with and what you can't.

[Anonymous]

In a good year, 50% of people don't vote anyway in the US. A few more won't be noticed at all.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In a good year, 50% of people don't vote anyway in the US. A few more won't be noticed at all.

This. No message is sent in not voting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, my MIL and her well-heeled, Republican friends refused to vote for W. the second time around b/c of the Iraq war. Some of their reservist kids actually had to go fight. Well, he still won.

They didn't "send a message." They just refused that they had voted for an idiot in the first place.

You may not like either candidate, but if Kasich wouldn't stand with Trump as his VP, I doubt he's voting for him.

OP here. Just for clarity, when I said it was too bad that Kasich didn't stay in the race, I meant that I believe he would have been president if he had - a much better scenario than either of the two we have now. While he wouldn't have won outright, He could have pulled enough states to keep HRC from winning 270, and then the decision falls to the House. They most definitely would choose Kasich.

[Anonymous]

With all the attention on respect for veterans fallen members of the military, they served to protect american's rights and freedoms, including the right to vote (in free and fair elections). Please honor them and exercise your right to vote. Please either 1) pick the candidate you would be most comfortable with leading the country over the next 4 years, or choose the candidate opposing the one that worries you least. You could vote 3rd/4th party, as option (3) but note that your candidate is unlikely to get elected so you would be leaving the outcome up to those that are voting for the major party candidates.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, my MIL and her well-heeled, Republican friends refused to vote for W. the second time around b/c of the Iraq war. Some of their reservist kids actually had to go fight. Well, he still won.

They didn't "send a message." They just refused that they had voted for an idiot in the first place.

You may not like either candidate, but if Kasich wouldn't stand with Trump as his VP, I doubt he's voting for him.

OP here. Just for clarity, when I said it was too bad that Kasich didn't stay in the race, I meant that I believe he would have been president if he had - a much better scenario than either of the two we have now. While he wouldn't have won outright, He could have pulled enough states to keep HRC from winning 270, and then the decision falls to the House. They most definitely would choose Kasich.

I think a likely scenario would actually be that the Dems unite behind their candidate (Hillary) and the Republican votes get divided between tea party caucus and mainstream GOP reps.

[Anonymous]

Woops, meant "veterans AND fallen members of the military" and
"Choose the one opposing the candidate who worried you MOST."

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, my MIL and her well-heeled, Republican friends refused to vote for W. the second time around b/c of the Iraq war. Some of their reservist kids actually had to go fight. Well, he still won.

They didn't "send a message." They just refused that they had voted for an idiot in the first place.

You may not like either candidate, but if Kasich wouldn't stand with Trump as his VP, I doubt he's voting for him.

OP here. Just for clarity, when I said it was too bad that Kasich didn't stay in the race, I meant that I believe he would have been president if he had - a much better scenario than either of the two we have now. While he wouldn't have won outright, He could have pulled enough states to keep HRC from winning 270, and then the decision falls to the House. They most definitely would choose Kasich.

As a pro-choice Democrat who really likes Hillary, Kasich is just nothing to talk about. Same retrograde sexual politics as most Republicans, all mixed up with a love of Christianity and a misplaced faith in the free market. Yeah, he sounds like a great candidate.