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 was meant to be a direct response to people who had actually, unironically, believed that 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 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 vote for the party regardless. However, there is something to be said when a lesser candidate is nominated, then realizing that they're uninspiring, had relied on lobbyist funds, and the momentum is nil which amplifies criticism from all sides because nobody was backing them up. In any other context, we'd call this a complete embarrassment.
With this uphill battle, people start parroting lesser evil slogans, which incidentally sends this idea that the party only cares about winning at any cost, or preach incremental change. Meanwhile, the fearmongers resort to guilt tripping, instill a false dichotomy with cliché quotes on neutrality or inaction,1) then retreats to ad hominem attacks (e.g. bot,2) tankie, teenager,3) privilege) when met with pushback.
This doesn't even scratch the surface of bad persuasive arguments. What is the logic of 'harm reduction' if it implies that harm will be done anyways, just not as fast or in your eyes, raising questions.4) What is the purpose of pulling out reductio ad Hitlerum, unprompted, then going on to accidentally frame yourself as a fascist collaborator?5) Why say all of this weird shit at all?6)7)
Vote for a third party?
You can vote for a third party candidate, which is respectable,8) but the vote shaming partisans9) will angrily echo the flaws of first-past-the-post voting (e.g. spoiler effect), call these politicians 'grifters',10) and believe that it's foolish since it hasn't happened before, rather than consider things like the electoral–popular vote issue or voting blocs. Honestly, try not to take offense to these knee-jerk reactions.11)
There is a roadmap for third parties to succeed, and this desire exists, but they'd need to capture 5% of the popular vote for federal matching funds and capture 15% across the national polls to be invited to a presidential debate. If you truly believe, it's usually 'advised' that you only take a shot if you're in a safe state,12) not a swing state, but I don't want to sway anybody's hand.
Vote for the opposition?
Now, deciding to vote for the opposition is certainly a solution, but it shouldn't be something that you jump at without careful consideration. You already know that politicians lie and usually make populist statements to draw in voters during election season, so don't shut off your brain just yet. Also, avoid the trap of thinking it will 'teach a lesson' when the party will just 'course correct' to the right and reset this damn cycle.13)
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.14) You could also be fucking around, or trying to scare activists.15) However, if you were allegedly16) 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.17)
Regardless of the matter, there is still some point in voting. If your vote truly didn't matter, you wouldn't hear complaints about electoral integrity, gerrymandering, voter suppression, or any 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,18) 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'm not going to go into detail since, in the age of mass surveillance, it's not particularly wise to document your political actions or plans online. However, you must remember that a 'peaceful protests' are meant to be a demonstration of power, warning you that they could 'grow' into 'something bigger' if left alone. After all, this is why riot police identify, swarm, and arrest any 'leader' they see.
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 walking nuisance is effective. Besides, candidates are supposed to work for your damn vote in the first place, you have every right to negotiate and rough them up.19)
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 people take this at face value, without considering the validity or a reverse psychology effect (e.g. a foreign country 'allegedly' likes a popular socialist, so it causes people to vote for a weak neoliberal instead).
3)
Yes, teenagers are prone to saying stupid shit, but it's not a winning long-term strategy if you're telling the future generation of potential voters to “fuck off” for trying to care about what's going on.
4)
This can shine a light on their subtle racism, where they're usually quick to: call an entire group of people liars, wanting this group dead because of their government, behave incredibly self-righteous over a cherry-picked issue barely solved in the arguer's own country, and voice their dislike of a government in a way that sounds kinda racist until they tack on “government” at the end.
5)
Obviously, the point is to compare the opponent to Hitler, but whenever their side gets called '99% Hitler', 'Blue Hitler', or 'Blue MAGA', they may have a lapse in judgment and defend it, ruining the whole point. Furthermore, it's meant to persuade people into overcome their own principles, but they'll often fail to establish their own, so saying they'd “listen to Hitler” or “rather vote for Hitler” is a famously bad start.
6)
From their perspective, they'll have this preconceived notion of Leopards Eating People's Faces Party, but they'll word their feelings in the worst possible way (e.g. "you deserve what happens to you"). It's similar to how cryptocurrency nerds saying “have fun being poor” doesn't help their case.
7)
Honestly, self-proclaimed neoliberals will straight-up say the most 'cartoonishly evil' shit, but either lack the self-awareness or have done severe mental gymnastics to justify this ideological worldview. There's a reason why “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” is a common proverb.
8)
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!
9)
We could say a lot about the vote shamer's implied approach to ethical and moral dilemmas, but this is an incredibly massive philosophical tangent that I'm not going to get into.
10)
Do note how 'grifter' is a really weird smear, especially when it comes from other politicians, because every single politician can be called a 'grifter' if you're pessimistic enough or hate politicians.
11)
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 forgets once they drown in negative news.
12)
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.
13)
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' for people, at least in context of the overton window, and fall back to this complacent, cowardly big tent strategy that nobody actually wants.
14)
TL;DR: The internet is an awful debate stage. Consider the audience. Consider disingenuity. Does anybody want to learn and understand, or is it a pointless, distracting, one-upmanship with snooty bastards?
15)
For instance, one would say “I would be voting for your opposition then, do you still want me to go vote?”
16)
As a tangent, it's a bit amusing to recall scenes where first-time voters were shocked a close friend or relative 'voted wrong' and realizing, in retrospect, they lied their way out. However, this stops being funny once you find people who cut ties with people who 'voted wrong' and self-isolate to an unhealthy degree.
17)
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.
18)
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.
19)
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: 2025-03-08 05:26:11 by namelessrumia