It’s not really about mfm himself not voting, but him being a part of a massive group (perhaps majority) of non-voters who could together make real change if individually could be convinced to vote.
This is a bad line of reasoning. First of all, I hated our candidates. Yes, Hillary would’ve been infinitely better than Trump but I hate a lot of what she stands for and plus she and her DNC cronies cheated at every turn. Voting for her would’ve been selling out and degrading and disgusting to me. Also, I don’t like the idea that we just need more people to vote. Most people shouldn’t be voting. Most people are really dumb. What if someone who isn’t voting would vote for a really horrible candidate like Trump? I definitely don’t want them to vote. Basically, if you don’t vote, you’re a problem. If you vote your conscience and vote for a third party, you’re a problem too. You can’t win in people like Frink’s eyes unless you lower yourself to voting for the lesser of two evils. Staying inside and relaxing after another long and shitty day at a shitty job is more appealing to me than pointlessly participating in whatever passes for democracy in this country.
Yeah. I sort of agree with you on this score.
I agree with the sentiment, but not the reasoning. A choice between two equally bad options is a choice anyone would avoid. A choice between one tolerable and one bad option isn’t really a choice either – it’s a Hobson’s Choice where you’re railroaded toward a conclusion someone else pre-ordained. A choice between two good options with differing qualities is the sort of choice that makes you believe in free will again. A choice between more than two options means you live in Europe.
But in that sense it’s academic whether you thought Clinton was as bad as Trump or not. The very fact that The Howling Abyss was one of the options on the ballot meant that, at best, this time around people got a Hobson’s Choice. If you chafe at such a thing, that’s a big problem.
But to misquote Donald Rumsfeld, you vote in the election you have, not in the election you wish you had. If you find yourself frequently wishing for different elections, or bemoaning “whatever passes for democracy in this country”, there are things you can do – some of them are hard work and will accomplish very little, some of them are not much work and accomplish nothing, such are your bad choices when you want to change an entrenched system. If you want better political parties, change the system so that different political parties or candidates can be relevant. Campaign finance reform, open primary systems, public financing, redistricting reform, national popular vote, proportional representation, and so on. Heck, think big and go full parliamentary system. Usually these things start local at the city level and filter up, and it can take decades. You might not feel good about your voting options until you’re 90, or your kids are 90, but that’s still better than never. I’m not necessarily advocating for these things myself, but if improving the quality of the two parties is a big deal to you, or making third parties relevant is a big deal to you, these are all worth considering. Voting for third parties in a system in which they are irrelevant, however, truly is equivalent to staying home.
Great, but how does this change the math of being just one voter in a sea full of voters who are dead-set on doing the craziest and most irresponsible thing possible (i.e. living in Oklahoma)? It doesn’t. But ask Doug Jones how that math sometimes can still work out when conditions are right.