IMO if you don't vote, you're tacitly agreeing with whoever gets voted into office.

(Although US voter suppression weakens this argument)

That's reasonable enough, but you have to consider it in the context that we don't vote for president, we vote for state electors to vote for president.

If you live in a 'safe' state, tacitly agreeing with your state's electors doesn't mean tacitly agreeing with the electoral college result.

	▲	lotsofpulp an hour ago \| parent [-]
		If you can’t be bothered to make your disapproval seen at least once every 4 years, then I consider it a tacit approval. So that actually makes 2/3 of Americans in support of Trump’s brand of America.

▲

rdm_blackhole 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I disagree with your take. You have the right to not vote when you disagree with all parties running.

In fact, from a moral point of view voting for the lesser evil is highly objectionable because you are voting for someone who you do not even support just so that another person you support even less does not get elected.

Its perfectly fine to say, I don't agree with either and I am going to sit this one out otherwise you end up in weird political dynamics that you can see playing out in real time in France for example.

	▲	Ruphin 18 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If your political system does not present you with a candidate that aligns with your interests or beliefs, you should vote to change the political system. Not voting is consent to the status quo.
	▲	megagpt3 5 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]