I get the idea of voting against a repulsive candidate. I voted against Hillary and then again against Biden. But the concept only holds up when the other choice is marginally acceptable. When it comes down to voting for broken left arm or a broken right arm, I'll vote for neither just to establish a record that somebody thinks both choices suck.
Does the same logic pertain when the other choice is "marginally
unacceptable"?
As someone said, "they" want you to
not vote
for the opposing candidate. In our
mainly two party system that third party just functions to allow you to disenfranchise yourself.
Your broken arm analogy is inappropriate to the situation although it sounds OK when you say it fast and only if you're 100% ambidextrous. This is
never the case in an analogous political sense.
They (all of them) don't care about your "establishing a record." They only care about your voting for their scurrilous bastard as opposed to the other party's scurrilous bastard.
So, as I say, every once in a while a third party candidate actually wins, but that (in my opinion) is also dependent on popularity --as in heroism, for example --as well as political stance.
"It's a good thing," Terry said wryly, "that Elvis Presley didn't run as a third party candidate for President."
(That
also only sounds good if you say it fast.) :)
So, I will say this categorically: If you want to vote for a third party candidate on whatever grounds you deem appropriate, for the most part, you might as well stay home (or not mail in your ballot).
You have joined the unwashed majority who don't vote at all.
And don't forget: Nowadays most people seek public office for
their power, not for
your principles.
Terry, 230RN
