Nobody likes voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Casting a vote in favor of someone who is diametrically opposed to your viewpoint(s) absolutely sucks. The shitty reality is that we aren’t going to change the electoral process in the next two months.

If you don’t see either major candidate as a champion that you can support, it seems more beneficial to see it as selecting your enemy for the next four years. I would rather fight against someone that I have a chance of changing. At minimum I would rather protest against someone that I think has a lower chance of authorizing lethal force against a march that I attend.

Voting for a 3rd presidential candidate (or not voting at all), is letting someone else make that decision for you.

That said, we have got to get out of this constant cycle of only having two options. There’s too much money at a national level to start there. We’ve got to start local and get third party candidates into offices at a city level, then state, then national. It’s going to take a long time and it should have happened so very long ago. We can’t change the past, we can only change the future. The only time to start changing the future is in the present.

  • SolidGrue@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    This is one of the dumbest takes I’ve seen here. It’s like filling up your gasoline powered car on diesel fuel just to protest Big Oil. All you’re doing is ruining your car and making money for other people.

    If you really want to see effective change and successful third parties then start winning elections at the local, county and state levels THEN start your national movement. You don’t just win national elections by being the protest candidate.

    But it’ll never happen because that’s, like, actual work and not simply spoiling national elections.