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 an hour 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.

▲

rdm_blackhole 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Not voting is consent to the status quo.

I disagree fundamentally.

Not voting is simply not making a choice. If the choices presented do not align with my preferences then I do not vote. Why would I vote for someone who I don't support? I don't pick the candidates that are offered. Want me to vote? Then get better candidates next time! Until then I will exercise my right to not vote.

Your status quo also assume that either one or both candidates are presenting you with potential change to what has happened in the past whereas most of the time, the choices are simply a continuation of what has been happening aka tinkering on the margins without pissing too many people off.

	▲	_whiteCaps_ 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think purposely spoiling your ballot is a better signal to the parties that none of them are acceptable. Is that possible in your elections? Around here, a spoiled ballot is scrutinized by the party observers, so your message would definitely be heard. I'd love to see a ballot with ranked choice voting that includes a none of the above option.

▲

megagpt3 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]