dealing_with_lesser_candidates
Table of Contents
So You're Dealing With Lesser Presidential Candidates (Again)
Main article: Politics of the United States
This article is a collection of personal thoughts on this scenario in United States politics, where the corporate duopoly leaves you with two lesser presidential candidates. Do note that this article is meant to be vague and timeless. Please do not view this as a guide or instructions.
Acknowledgements
This article may have controversial opinions!
If you believe that it may anger or upset you, please remember that you have the pointing device and do not have to read this.
I'd like to preface this by saying that this article is meant to be a direct response to people who had actually, unironically, believed not explicitly voicing your own opinions allegedly makes you 'evil' or 'shady', so the intended tone of this article is “If you want to hear about my damn opinions so badly, then all of you are going to hear it, and I'm going to make it your damn problem because somebody clearly values it!”
List of choices
Still vote for the party?
First and foremost, the easiest solution is to still vote for the party. However, whenever a lesser candidate is nominated, there is a point where you have to realize that the candidate is uninspiring, relying on lobby funding, and their momentum is actually nil, which will amplify criticism coming from all sides because nobody was backing them up. In any other context, it's a complete embarrassment.
With this uphill battle, people will parrot lesser evil slogans, sending the idea that parties only care about winning, and preach incremental change without any promises. Meanwhile, the fearmongers resort to guilt tripping, instill a false dichotomy with cliché quotes on neutrality or inaction,1) and retreat to ad hominem attacks (e.g. bot,2) single-issue voter, tankie, teenager, privilege, etc.).
Some of their persuasive arguments are just awful too. The term 'harm reduction' does not sound that great once you realize this implies that harm *will* happen, just not as fast or in your eyes. I have also seen the reductio ad Hitlerum thrown around, except the arguer just contradicts themselves.3) Compassion is also fleeting as they are quick to act petty, hope for karma,4) or say vile shit.5)
Vote for a third party?
You can vote for a third party candidate, which is respectable,6) but vote shaming partisans7) will angrily echo first-past-the-post voting's flaws (e.g. spoiler effect), unironically call them 'grifters', and insist said idea is foolish since it 'never happened' before, rather than look at the electoral–popular vote, the voting blocs, the turnout, and so on. Honestly, try not to take offense to these knee-jerk reactions.8)
There's a roadmap for a third party to succeed, and the desire vaguely exists, but they need to capture 5% of the popular vote for federal matching funds and 15% across the national polls to even be invited to a presidential debate. If you truly believe, then it's 'advised' that you only take this shot if you live in a 'safe state' (i.e. not a swing state),9) but I don't want to sway anybody's hand here.
Vote for the opposition?
Deciding to vote for the opposition is a choice, but it shouldn't be something that you should jump at without careful consideration. You should already know that politicians often turn into demagogues and lie by making populist statements to draw voters, so don't shut off your brain just yet, and avoid the trap of thinking it will 'teach a lesson' as the party will just 'course correct' to the right and reset this damn cycle.10)
If you truly believe you side with the opposition's policies more, or believe accelerationism is viable, that's your prerogative and I'm not going to belabor the point since I'm not in the business of getting oneself into unconstructive digital debates.11) You could also be fucking around, or trying to scare activists.12) However, if you were allegedly13) doing it as a joke, then, I mean, don't be shocked.
Not voting? Write-in?
Lastly, we have abstention, the protest vote, and write-ins, which are fairly popular choices, but the reasoning is usually flawed. If you just have political apathy, that's understandable. However, the issues arise when people try to put logic into it, believing that low voter turnout in high stakes election will make a difference (it won't), or they make this whole 'anti-government' spectacle out of it.14)
Regardless of the matter, there is still some point in voting. If your vote, truly, didn't matter, then you wouldn't hear complaints about electoral integrity, gerrymandering, voter suppression, or news regarding political violence (e.g. ballot box arson, false bomb threats, insurrection plots, etc.). Again, I simply want to reiterate that I'm just pointing things out, not making an argument.
What if we just revolt?
You could talk up a revolution, but they can't just come out of nowhere. The average person doesn't want to potentially die, unless their living conditions are inhumane,15) so you'll probably just end up scaring people. Furthermore, failure means deaths and mass imprisonment for conspiracy, opening the door for a skewed overton window. Are you sure you want to carry this responsibility? No right or wrong answers.
Of course, I can't be too detailed since documenting your plans isn't wise in the age of mass surveillance, but it must be reminded that 'peaceful protests' are meant to be a demonstration of power, a warning that things could 'escalate' if the problem festers. When it does, the protestors may learn how to counter crowd control (e.g. kettling) and will have a choice to appear threatening.16)
Closing thoughts
While I do have qualms and often joke about electoralism, I want to be clear that this article doesn't intend to discourage voting. It's more of a passive viewpoint, letting people decide their own fate, in contrast to 'vote shaming' partisans who thinks being a know-it-all nuisance is effective. Besides, the candidates are supposed to work for your damn vote in the first place, you have a right to negotiate and rough them up.17)
1)
"Quote Origin: The Hottest Places in Hell Are Reserved for Those Who in a Period of Moral Crisis Maintain Their Neutrality" (January 14, 2015). Quote Investigator.
2)
With the digital age, politicians are quick to blame foreign electoral intervention and some people take this at face value, without considering its validity or a possible reverse psychology effect (e.g. some foreign country 'allegedly' likes a popular socialist, so it causes people to vote for a weak neoliberal instead).
3)
The point is to compare the opponent to Hitler and persuade the recipient to overcome their principles, but they often fail to establish their own principles, so when their side gets called '99% Hitler', 'Blue Hitler', or 'Blue MAGA', they may have a lapse in judgement and, suddenly, they're shaking hands with Hitler.
4)
Considering how much they echo face-eating leopards and imagine the opposition being deported or going through a genocide. Not much compassion, just short-term gratification for being 'right' in their eyes.
5)
Honestly, self-proclaimed neoliberals will straight-up say the most 'cartoonishly evil' shit since they either: lack self-awareness, or have done severe mental gymnastics to justify their ideological worldview. There *is* a reason why “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” is a common proverb amongst leftists.
6)
To be clear, I am usually a split-ticket voter who actually tries to research what exactly is on the ballot, thus mix-and-match candidates from different parties. We do have straight-ticket voting here, but you could probably figure out that I am not a low information voter from all these damn words I'm writing!
7)
Now, we can easily dissect the vote shamer's logic to extract their implied 'approaches' to ethical and moral dilemmas, but that would lead to an incredibly massive philosophical tangent that I'm not going to get into.
8)
Whenever they lose, some partisans instinctively blame third party voters, usually without doing any math. They often do this because it's a 'safer' option, as properly blaming voting blocs can lead to very curious statements. Anyways, the third party voter will probably be pissed from having secondhand stress inflicted on them, but don't take it personally as the partisan usually doomscrolls and forgets.
9)
The theory is that: if you feel like your vote won't have any impact and the winner in your state is already decided, then consider voting for a third party, since the federal government does not care about the electoral college when it comes to allocating federal matching funds, unlike the actual election.
10)
Considering that the party is plagued by lobbyist-funded centrists, the party would simply view a loss as evidence that the party has become 'too radical', at least in context of the overton window, and fall back to a complacent, cowardly big tent strategy that nobody actually wants. Do not make this mistake.
11)
TL;DR: The internet is an awful debate stage. Consider the audience. Consider disingenuity. Does anyone want to learn and understand, or is it a pointless, distracting, one-upmanship with snooty bastards?
12)
For instance, one would say “I would be voting for your opposition then, do you still want me to go vote?”
13)
As a tangent, it is amusing to recall scenes where first-time voters were shocked that a close friend or relative voted wrong and realizing, in retrospect, they *lied* their way out. However, it stops being funny once you find people who cut ties and avoidance cope to an unhealthy degree.
14)
Of course, this isn't necessarially bad. It's just that some of these movements have more valid motives and reasoning, compared to other movements that are an ideologically syncretic mess to be avoided.
15)
There's a point where dying in a revolution becomes more 'preferable' than eating dirt and rocks, which was actually the precedent for certain historical revolutions.
16)
At some point, protestors may decide that 'appearing non-threatening' and 'compliance' is no longer valid, especially after protestors have been killed or martyred. However, there is some nuance, and protestors aren't 'automatically' on the right side of history in every scenario. That's for you to decide.
17)
I mean, the candidates are on a campaign trail for a damn reason. Even if you know you'll vote for them, have the courage to negotiate and rough them up. Politics is theater, after all. If these candidate don't have the courtesy to lie, that's honestly a skill issue.
dealing_with_lesser_candidates.txt · Last modified: by namelessrumia