"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." - George Carlin
If you are to take this at face value, the answer to that (IMO) is to vote third party if you don't have a strong preference between the main two. Then you are doing your small bit[1] towards promoting plurality, and promoting the issues that probably align closer to your values than one of the main two.
1. You may say, 'i will make no difference', well, as one in 300m that is true no matter who you vote for. May as well vote with your conscience.
Not voting for the third party you believe in is the greater sin (IMHO) as garnering 5% of the popular vote makes them eligible for matching federal funds in the subsequent election.
Simply put, let's say you're a Libertarian, but don't want to vote for Gary Johnson to prevent 'throwing your vote away'. But voting for him now possibly adds to his campaign funds in the 2016 election, which increases third party viability fairly substantially.
You didn't vote. So, the better candidate (for whom you could have voted) wasn't voted into the office. So, the worse candidate was voted into the office. You are responsible for the election of a bad candidate.
q.e.d.
Note 1: I know, analyzing quotes is useless, but I couldn't resist.
Note 2: If there are only bad candidates the situation is more complex, but this is an edge case which only happens in thought experiments.
I don't agree that having only bad candidates is "an edge case which only happens in thought experiments". It's easy to get blinded by the all-to-common sports team approach to party politics (My team good! Other team bad!), but issue for issue, there just isn't any appreciable difference in the candidates.
So what is the "key difference" between the parties? Rhetoric. When Republicans advocate a small contraction of the welfare state, Democrats claim that Republicans totally oppose the welfare state. And many Republicans oblige them by standing up for "liberty" and "responsibility." Similarly, when Democrats advocate a small expansion in the welfare state, Republican claim that Democrats oppose free markets. And many Democrats oblige them by saying things like "markets only benefit the rich."
This rhetorical illusion is so powerful that when a Democrat like Clinton adopts many pro-market reforms, Republicans still hate him as a 60s radical. And when Bush II sharply expands the welfare state, Democrats still hate him as a billionaire's lackey.
Hypothetically - All candidates disgust me and have abhorent views contrary to my fundamental views on human rights, ethics, privacy etc.
What now? One of them may agree with me on a single, small issue, the other doesn't. But how can I vote for that guy if I know that he's going to continue eroding everything I stand for on every other issue?
One of them may agree with me on a single, small issue, the other doesn't.
The other?
There are more than two candidates.
Even if a 3rd (or 4th or fifth) party candidate doesn't have a chance of wining, a better showing in the election makes it, at least somewhat, easier for such parties to get press coverage and admission to national debates in the future.
This goes directly against the advice I responded to though - that if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils you are directly responsible for the greater of the two getting in.
I disagree with that stance. It appears you do as well.
>"If there are only bad candidates the situation is more complex, but this is an edge case which only happens in thought experiments"
I think you and I have differing opinions about the candidates. What do you consider "good"? Has there even been a "good" candidate in the past 20, 30 years?
I am not from the US, so I have to draw my "Sorry, I don't know" card here, but I really cannot believe that there were only bad candidates - It isn't impossible, but without proof it seems highly unlikely, i.e. an edge case.
Extreme variations are more likely the smaller your sample size is, considering America has a two party system they have a very small sample size causing it to be prone to extreme variation. Examples: No women candidate, no candidate that is not a politician, no candidate that favors alternate economic models, etc etc. This makes no "good" candidates according to a particular individual's view highly likely.
I love George Carlin, I think he's one of the greatest comedians to have ever lived. You can't seriously believe take this as truth though, can you? If you vote you caused the problem? That you cannot argue/complain that who you vote for turns out to be just another politician looking out for number one? By that 'logic' I have no right to complain if I hire someone who turns out to be completely incompetent?
If you are governed by fools or charlatans everyone has the right to speak out, to bitch, whine, complain - voter or not. That's the right we have, and we're fortunate to have it. (Yes, we need better - but apathy changes nothing).
Your hiring analogy is flawed, because you have the right to not hire anyone in the first place.
> If you are governed by fools or charlatans everyone has the right to speak out, to bitch, whine, complain - voter or not.
You have the right to complain about the fool, but you don't have the right to complain about being governed - since that's what you consented to when you tick the box.
Before being asked "Which fool should govern?" should you not be asked "Do you want to be governed by a fool?"
You consent to it just as much by not voting. You pay taxes to fund them FFS!
You are doing less to change the system by not voting than you are by voting. It would be lovely to be asked "Do you want to be governed by a fool?", but you don't get that, ignoring the question you are asked is not bringing that closer.
You could at least spoil you ballot if you wish to protest. Doing nothing will be interpreted as laziness, apathy and comfort. Not voting because you disagree with the system is fundamentally misguided, at least if you want to be pragmatic.
