Are you going to vote? How do you decide?

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Hopefully we can discuss this without being partisan, because I feel like the issue is pretty much exactly the same on both sides (regardless of which side I feel is right). 

 

If you feel like the nominee from the other party is outrageously unacceptable, but the nominee for your own party is also someone you would really rather not see running the country, what will you do? Will you abstain in protest? Will you vote for your party's nominee, hoping that their tendencies will be mitigated by the checks and balances built into the system and in the expectation that at least the issues you feel are important will be covered? Will you vote for someone else, someone you wholeheartedly believe is the best candidate but who is highly unlikely to garner enough votes to win, and who instead may draw off enough votes from your own party's nominee to allow the other nominee to win? 

 

I'm truly undecided about what to do this year. I really thought that I would vote for a non-nominated former candidate, regardless of the consequences, but as we get closer to the election, I cannot bear the idea of the other party's nominee winning in a Nader/Gore/Bush scenario. 

 

If you care to talk about it, what will you do? What's your thought process like at this point? If this post is deleted, I totally get it, but I'd love to hear how other people are working this out in their heads, because I know that neither of the two nominees is the kind of person that many of us wanted to lead the country for the next 4-8 years. 

 

:bigear:

Edited August 5, 2016 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[Crimson Wife]

Unless you live in a swing state, it doesn't matter who you vote for so you might as well vote for a 3rd party candidate to send a message. California is going to go overwhelmingly "blue" like it always does so I'm voting my conscience.

[lloyd77]

I do live in a swing state and I have no idea what to do.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Unless you live in a swing state, it doesn't matter who you vote for so you might as well vote for a 3rd party candidate to send a message. California is going to go overwhelmingly "blue" like it always does so I'm voting my conscience.

 

Hm, very interesting, that's a good point. This state is typically very reliably Party A, so in the past I've been able to count on that. However, I think this year there might be a lot of constituents of Party B who haven't voted in years past because they thought it was pointless, but who are fired up for a possible change in this cycle. We might not end up swinging, but I think it might be closer than it has been in many years.

[regentrude]

I will vote. I grew up in a country where we did not have this right, and I consider it my duty to exercise this privilege.

It is difficult to answer your question without becoming political, which would be against board rules, but I will try my best:

 

The system is currently set up so that realistically there are only two choices. I vote for the candidate of the two whom I consider the better choice for the office.

If I find one person absolutely unacceptable for the office and do not think the other person is a great candidate, but would be the better one, I will vote for this second person. I will not throw my vote away on a third independent candidate who does not stand a chance, just to voice my opinion in protest; I consider it far more important to make sure the unacceptable person does not win. 

Unfortunately with the electoral college, my voice may not matter at all, since the president is not elected by popular vote. 

 

ETA: I am not affiliated with any political party, so there is no "my" party. 

Edited August 5, 2016 by regentrude

[Ali in OR]

I am not of either party. I am an unaffiliated voter. I vote for the person I deem most capable. I think too many people get caught up "I have to vote my party", "the other party is the bad guy", etc. I don't think it's really that hard to make a decision this year.

 

[umsami]

I live in a swing state (Florida). I'm an independent (well, no party affiliation).  My preferred candidate is no longer in the mix  I am not sure if I will vote 3rd party or if I will vote for the least objectionable mainstream candidate to me.  At this point, I'm leaning towards the latter.  A week ago, I was third party.  I think it will depend a lot on what happens over the next few months.  I cannot, under any circumstance, see myself voting for the other mainstream party candidate, however.   It would be voting against my own interests quite clearly. 

 

I wish the system was different quite frankly.

Edited August 5, 2016 by umsami

[happi duck]

Yes, I am going to vote!

 

I know who I am going to vote *for* not just *against*, kwim?

 

I don't vote by party, though it often works out that way. I try hard to seek out several sources for information and try hard to follow up accusations with research.

[Saddlemomma]

I hold my nose and choose who I think is the lessor of two evils.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I am not of either party. I am an unaffiliated voter. I vote for the person I deem most capable. I think too many people get caught up "I have to vote my party", "the other party is the bad guy", etc. I don't think it's really that hard to make a decision this year.

 

 

I hear you. However, if we draw off enough votes to sabotage the candidate of the party we normally agree with, then we will most likely end up with a candidate who does not reflect our beliefs and interests in any way (and in fact opposes them). So if we vote for the lesser of two evils, at least we have a candidate who may be personally reprehensible but who is at least supporting our interests. KWIM? I think that's what most of us are struggling with. Nader voters ended up with Bush, who is pretty much exactly the opposite of what they really wanted, when they could have voted for Gore and at least been in their own ballpark!

 

Yes, I agree that I wish the system was structured differently. Is there any way to accomplish that at this point, or is it a lost cause? 

Edited August 5, 2016 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[MaeFlowers]

Honestly, I'm struggling, too. I don't like either major candidate. Choosing between the lesser of two evils means you are still choosing evil, right?

 

But, how can I vote for a third party candidate when, in our system, it equates to giving your vote to the party you disagree with most?

 

I think in the end I will choose one of the major candidates but only because of particular issue that I believe is a major issue that will affect all. I still won't be happy about it.

[PinkTulip]

Right now, I'm heavily leaning towards either voting for a candidate that did not win my party's nomination, or writing in the name of a person I wish had run.

 

I was thinking about this yesterday, and am really perplexed about what to do, because I cannot in good conscience vote for either nominee.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'll vote for the less objectionable one.

 

I'm not a member of any party.

 

 

[EmseB]

I'm voting for the down ballot races.  I refuse to pick a presidential candidate from either of the major parties.

[LucyStoner]

I heard an analogy on the radio I will repeat a version of here. For all practical intents and purposes, federal elections are like RSVP cards which ask you to select the steak or the vegetarian option. You can cross out both steak and vegetarian and write "Wild Alaskan King Salmon" but when you arrive at the event, they are going to serve you the steak or the vegetarian option. They aren't going to go adding stuff to the menu just on your account.

 

If one finds either the steak or the vegetarian option absolutely vile, they are probably better off making sure they requested whichever they could live with rather than asking for their ideal preference. If one considers the steak and the vegetarian option equally vile, ask for the salmon but expect to make a meal of the sides and rolls.

 

I am an active member of a major political party. I don't always agree with the party but I'm happy as a member and volunteer because it is generally the best direction in my estimation. There have been a number of times at the local and congressional district level I have backed someone who was not from my party but at the end of the day, I do not consider myself an independent voter. If I were in a situation where I considered my party's candidate to not just be less than ideal but to be actually dangerous, besides perhaps rethinking my party affliliation, I would absolutely consider voting for the other major party candidate provided I didn't think they were just as bad.

 

Because I live in a state that is not in play, the strongest thing I can withhold from a candidate is not my vote. It is my volunteer time, my GOTV efforts and my financial support. If I lived in a state that was in play, the answer to the above dilemma would be manifestly obvious to me.

 

I support everyone's right to decide for themselves but the above summarizes my personal reasoning. Luckily enough for me, my party nominated someone whom I generally support and who I absolutely do not consider to be the lesser of two evils.

Edited August 5, 2016 by LucyStoner

[happi duck]

I continue to be surprised by the "two evils" camp.

 

I honestly do not see how one could hate both candidates to the *same* degree.

 

(Like I said up thread, I spend a lot of time reading pros and cons for both candidates and then trying to research accusations to the best of my ability.)

 

This is fascinating to me.

[MyLittleBears]

I like to think my vote counts, so yes I will vote. I will vote for the person that most closely represents my beliefs and I will not throw away my vote by voting other.

[hornblower]

I saw a thing on twitter which I think explains it well: (via AstroKatie)

"Just a reminder that voting isn't an endorsement of a person, it's an activity that we do in order to influence a preferred outcome among the available plausible possibilities.

You don't have to be 'with' anyone, you don't have to like anyone, you don't have to back anyone; you just have to decide which box you can tick to more likely bring about the future you prefer. 

That calculation makes no sense without an acknowledgement of your country and political system as it is. 

Protests, lobbying, campaigning, letter-writing and social movements are for fundamentally changing the political system. 

Voting is just strategy. " 

 

 

[Guest]

I'm in the nope and nopers category on them. So I'm going with the one who will do the least damage and feel good about the choice. God's got this, thankfully, and I know how the story ends. The rest is just making the wisest choice we can in a given circumstance and think it's fine that different Christians come to different views about that.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I continue to be surprised by the "two evils" camp.

 

I honestly do not see how one could hate both candidates to the *same* degree.

 

(Like I said up thread, I spend a lot of time reading pros and cons for both candidates and then trying to research accusations to the best of my ability.)

 

This is fascinating to me.

 

Well I kinda do dislike them to the same degree.  I'll still vote.  Sometimes when I don't like either I tell my husband I'll vote for who he wants.  He is not allowed to vote and is less than thrilled by that fact.

[mommyoffive]

I am voting.  No matter what, if it really matters or not. 

[maize]

Some states that are not usually swing states are considered battlegrounds this year.

 

It is an odd election year for sure and I'm one who really wishes there was a viable third option.

[trulycrabby]

Are we allowed to talk about politics? I don't mind sharing opinions but personally will wait until the mods decide this topic can stay.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Are we allowed to talk about politics? I don't mind sharing opinions but personally will wait until the mods decide this topic can stay.

 

No I think it's a question about whether one is going to vote and how they'll decide, but not about who they will vote for and why and all that.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

If one finds either the steak or the vegetarian option absolutely vile, they are probably better off making sure they requested whichever they could live with rather than asking for their ideal preference. If one considers the steak and the vegetarian option equally vile, ask for the salmon but expect to make a meal of the sides and rolls.

 

 

I saw a thing on twitter which I think explains it well: (via AstroKatie)

 

"Just a reminder that voting isn't an endorsement of a person, it's an activity that we do in order to influence a preferred outcome among the available plausible possibilities.

 

You don't have to be 'with' anyone, you don't have to like anyone, you don't have to back anyone; you just have to decide which box you can tick to more likely bring about the future you prefer. 

 

That calculation makes no sense without an acknowledgement of your country and political system as it is. 

 

Protests, lobbying, campaigning, letter-writing and social movements are for fundamentally changing the political system. 

 

Voting is just strategy. " 

 

Thank you both, these were very helpful perspectives and the kind of fresh (to me, anyway) insight I was hoping for here.

 

I continue to be surprised by the "two evils" camp.

 

I honestly do not see how one could hate both candidates to the *same* degree.

 

(Like I said up thread, I spend a lot of time reading pros and cons for both candidates and then trying to research accusations to the best of my ability.)

 

This is fascinating to me.

 

 

I don't hate them both to same degree. My feelings are a lot more nuanced than just "hatred." Though I do despise one of them, I don't necessarily feel that the other one will be a better leader, given the strictures of the system. Really, though, my indecision is more about caving. I very much wanted one candidate to garner the nomination. That candidate's vision and plans really spoke to me, maybe for the first time in any election. My indecision has more to do with capitulation to a broken system than anything else. I'm so mad that truly voting my conscience would possibly contribute to a even bigger catastrophe because the system is such a mess. (I need a little tantrum emoji.)

 

But frankly, the perspective Hornblower posted is really resonating with me and helping to soothe my resentment to some degree.

Edited August 5, 2016 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[RootAnn]

I'm so mad that truly voting my conscience would possibly contribute to a even bigger catastrophe because the system is such a mess. (I need a little tantrum emoji.)

 

I live in a state where it will not matter how I vote since my area usually votes overwhelmingly one particular way. I'm grateful that this allows me to vote my conscience - which isn't for either of the two major party candidates. (I don't hate them, but I fear equally (but in different ways) for how the future of the country will be. I don't want my vote going for either one of those futures even though I know one of them will happen regardless.)

 

I don't know what I would do if I lived in a place where the vote would be even remotely close. I'm just glad I don't have to make that choice. I would feel like the quote, above, if I had to pick one of the two major candidates.

Edited August 5, 2016 by RootAnn

[LucyStoner]

I saw a thing on twitter which I think explains it well: (via AstroKatie)

 

"Just a reminder that voting isn't an endorsement of a person, it's an activity that we do in order to influence a preferred outcome among the available plausible possibilities.

 

You don't have to be 'with' anyone, you don't have to like anyone, you don't have to back anyone; you just have to decide which box you can tick to more likely bring about the future you prefer.

 

That calculation makes no sense without an acknowledgement of your country and political system as it is.

 

Protests, lobbying, campaigning, letter-writing and social movements are for fundamentally changing the political system.

 

Voting is just strategy. "

QFT. A lot of people seem to overlook this.

 

At the end of the day, I don't care WHO is in the Oval Office, I care which policy directions he or she is trying to move the country in. If I disagree with one candidate and their party on some policies and disagree with the other candidate and their party on essentially ALL policies, I don't care much which one seems most likable or politically talented or (within certain bounds) which one is more morally sound in my view. A less than perfect person with policies I prefer is better to me than withholding my support while waiting for my ideal candidate.

 

Let's face it, for someone to have a candidate they are in total lockstep with policy wise and personally, that candidate is going to need to be them-self. And when they get elected they would find that no one, not even them, will get everything they want politically.

Edited August 5, 2016 by LucyStoner

[TCB]

I think I'm going to have to make a meal of the rolls and sides because I can't figure out who the lesser of 2 evils is. Also, I'm of the opinion if it's the lesser of 2 evils, then it's still evil and I don't want to vote for it. I'm pretty sure that this is the most difficult election for me to find someone to vote for in my 52 years. I have not always voted for the same party in the past.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

QFT. A lot of people seem to overlook this.

 

At the end of the day, I don't care WHO is in the Oval Office, I care which policy directions he or she is trying to move the country in. If I agree with one candidate and their party on some policies and disagree with the other candidate and their party on essentially ALL policies, I don't care much which one seems most likable or politically talented or (within certain bounds) which one is more morally sound in my view. A less than perfect person with policies I prefer is better to me than withholding my support while waiting for my ideal candidate. Let's face it, for someone to have a candidate they are in total lockstep with policy wise and personally, that candidate is going to need to be themselves. And when they get elected they would find that not one, not even them will get everything they want politically.

 

 

In any other election cycle, I'd have told you I felt the same way. I've felt like any option is generally pretty benign, ultimately. This year, I'm flat out horrified at what's happened. It has really shaken the way I feel about this country, my state, and even my family members. I've never felt that way about an election before. 

 

And honestly, I know that people on the other side of the fence feel the same way, for different reasons. (And I wish a few of them would quit talking to me about it :lol:) So I'm not trying to make the thread partisan when I say that, just explaining why I'm struggling so much this year.

Edited August 5, 2016 by ILiveInFlipFlops

[maize]

I heard an analogy on the radio I will repeat a version of here. For all practical intents and purposes, federal elections are like RSVP cards which ask you to select the steak or the vegetarian option. You can cross out both steak and vegetarian and write "Wild Alaskan King Salmon" but when you arrive at the event, they are going to serve you the steak or the vegetarian option. They aren't going to go adding stuff to the menu just on your account.

 

If one finds either the steak or the vegetarian option absolutely vile, they are probably better off making sure they requested whichever they could live with rather than asking for their ideal preference. If one considers the steak and the vegetarian option equally vile, ask for the salmon but expect to make a meal of the sides and rolls.

 

I am an active member of a major political party. I don't always agree with the party but I'm happy as a member and volunteer because it is generally the best direction in my estimation. There have been a number of times at the local and congressional district level I have backed someone who was not from my party but at the end of the day, I do not consider myself an independent voter. If I were in a situation where I considered my party's candidate to not just be less than ideal but to be actually dangerous, besides perhaps rethinking my party affliliation, I would absolutely consider voting for the other major party canidate provided I didn't think they were just as bad.

 

Because I live in a state that is not in play, the strongest thing I can withhold from a candidate is not my vote. It is my volunteer time, my GOTV efforts and my financial support. If I lived in a state that was in play, the answer to the above dilemma would be manifestly obvious to me.

 

I support everyone's right to decide for themselves but the above summarizes my personal reasoning. Luckily enough for me, my party nominated someone whom I generally support and who I absolutely do not consider to be the lesser of two evils.

The trouble with this analogy is that we are not just voting for what we will personally eat. It's more as if what we vote for is what the whole country has to eat for four years. So maybe I am a longtime vegetarian and believe that the consumption of steak is both immoral and will triple the incidence of heart disease, but I have looked over the vegetarian option and discovered to my horror that it is drenched in cancer-causing pesticides.

 

I can't feel morally good about either option, but I must somehow choose between them because we are going to be stuck with one or the other.

Edited August 5, 2016 by maize

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

The trouble with this analogy is that we are not just voting for what we will personally eat. It's more as if what we vote for is what the whole country has to eat for four years. So maybe I am a longtime vegetarian and believe that the consumption of steak is both immoral and will triple thee incidence of heart disease, but I have looked over the vegetarian option and discovered to my horror that it is drenched in cancer-causing pesticides.

 

I can't feel morally good about either option, but I must somehow choose between them because we are going to be stuck with one or the other.

 

I love that. It sums up exactly how I feel. 

[Pawz4me]

Yes, I will vote. I've never missed an election yet. I'm unaffiliated and so always vote for the person I think will do the best job between the two people who actually have a chance of winning. This year is a much easier choice for me than in many years past. One person is highly qualified to hold the position of POTUS. One person is most definitely not.

[Ailaena]

 

I don't vote because it seems that whether one chooses vegetarian or steak, they get the damn, slimy salmon.

 

My vote doesn't matter, your vote doesn't matter, corruption, control, electoral college, etc, etc... And this isn't a new thing for me, i have never been registered to vote.

[ktgrok]

I've done the protest vote. I voted Nader, which probably directly led to the Gulf War. Thousands died, for ZERO benefit to me. My protest vote accomplished nothing, but people died. 

 

For me, the risk are two high for me to vote third party, and the benefits are realistically pretty much zero. 

 

I do want more third party candidates, but realistically that happens by voting for third parties on the local level, then in Congress, so we can change the balance of power, and change the laws that currently stack the deck against 3rd party candidates. That's how we accomplish it. Not by voting for someone in the presidential election that has no chance of winning. 

 

Of course, I'm in a swing state, so can't afford to be complacent. 

 

 

[rocassie]

I don't vote by party, but by candidate.   This year I may choose to leave the vote for President blank or vote 3rd party (have to look into them a little more,) but I always vote because there are all sorts of other issues and elections on the ballot.  Those I do care about.

[BigMamaBird]

I can't vote for the opposing party and I won't vote for the party I'm usually affiliated with.  So this year I am seriously researching Gary Johnson.  We disagree on my one major hot button issue and I'm having a hard time deciding if I'll actually vote for him or simply abstain this year.  I've never not voted and I don't want to abstain.  But the two major candidates are garbage and the alternative vote would mean going against a very strongly held belief.  

 

I'm praying hardcore on this one!

[QueenCat]

I will vote. To me, to not vote means I have no right to complain about the outcome. I will not vote third party. I thought I might but have realized that I need to do what I can to keep an insane person out of office. Being in a swing state is relevant to this point. I don't like who I'll be voting for... but it is the better of two bad options for our country, imho.

[madteaparty]

I think, in late capitalism, voting is one of the only things that makes people matter. Especially so in an electoral system that is bought and sold. It may soon turn to be that voting is just symbolic, but even symbols matter.

I am reminded of that Rosseau quote on how the Englishman thinks he is free, but is only free when they vote, after that, it's back to being some sort of slave.

So yes, I'm voting :)

I'm very to the left, so voting for Hillary is essentially voting republican to me, but I'm with her nonetheless. Because alternative is end of the republic. And I like this republic :)

Edited August 5, 2016 by madteaparty

[Crimson Wife]

  Nader voters ended up with Bush, who is pretty much exactly the opposite of what they really wanted, when they could have voted for Gore and at least been in their own ballpark!

 

Nader voters in 2000 and Perot voters in 1992 only hurt the more-similar candidate when those voters lived in swing states. Most Americans live in states where the contest isn't close. I think it's only around 8-10 states that are considered truly in play and many of those are smaller compared to big non-swing states like CA, TX, NY, etc. NH is a swing state and it has a population roughly 1/3 the size of my greater metro area (1.4 million vs. 4.7 million).

[Harriet Vane]

Normally in an election I carefully consider which candidate has policies that support my values, specifically medical care, fair wages, compassion for the working poor.

 

In this election, I am voting for the candidate least likely to cause World War 3. Not being flippant here. 

[LucyStoner]

The trouble with this analogy is that we are not just voting for what we will personally eat. It's more as if what we vote for is what the whole country has to eat for four years. So maybe I am a longtime vegetarian and believe that the consumption of steak is both immoral and will triple the incidence of heart disease, but I have looked over the vegetarian option and discovered to my horror that it is drenched in cancer-causing pesticides.

 

I can't feel morally good about either option, but I must somehow choose between them because we are going to be stuck with one or the other.

Perfect analogies are nearly as elusive as perfect candidates.

 

When people go to the polls (or sit down at their dining room table with their mail in ballot as the case may be), they can't plausibly decide what is best for everyone. We can decide what we think may be best or better for the country as a whole but undoubtably in a population as polarized as ours, there are millions of voters who rightfully reject whatever conclusions we might come to.

 

I would hope that people are factoring in more than just themselves when they think about what is the right direction for the nation at large. In any election, many policy ideas I am opposed to are ones that don't affect me personally but which I am still highly concerned about either for the sake of others or for the overall direction of the country. I imagine most people who consistently vote feel the same way, even if we disagree on the actual policies or the particulars. Call me an optimistic pessimist I guess.

Edited August 6, 2016 by LucyStoner

[AnnE-girl]

I can't vote for the opposing party and I won't vote for the party I'm usually affiliated with. So this year I am seriously researching Gary Johnson. We disagree on my one major hot button issue and I'm having a hard time deciding if I'll actually vote for him or simply abstain this year. I've never not voted and I don't want to abstain. But the two major candidates are garbage and the alternative vote would mean going against a very strongly held belief.

 

I'm praying hardcore on this one!

I have pretty similar feelings. My state isn't in play, so I feel comfortable voting for a third party candidate I don't completely agree with just for the sake of encouraging more candidates.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Yes I will be voting.

 

Not voting is voting for the "other". (Whoever you consider the other).

 

Voting third party risks a non majority vote.

 

A candidate must have enough electoral votes to be president. If no one reaches that number the House of representative gets to select the president.

 

Our system is set up for a two party system. We can change what the two options are but If we want more options we need to change how it works. Simply voting Micky Mouse or other third party won't change it.

Edited August 5, 2016 by PinkyandtheBrains.

[MistyMountain]

I do not like the nominee but I am not as against them as some are. I do not think it is a strong candidate to win because they are not popular with a lot if people and some outright hate and despise. To me this candidate is more the same old same old and I do not like American politicians. I will vote for the candidate that I am not crazy about but who is much better then the alternative. I sometimes do third party but only for second terms and in non swing states. The libertarian party seems to be getting more support but my views do not at all line up with libertarian platform.

Edited August 5, 2016 by MistyMountain

[zoobie]

I continue to be surprised by the "two evils" camp.

 

I honestly do not see how one could hate both candidates to the *same* degree.

 

(Like I said up thread, I spend a lot of time reading pros and cons for both candidates and then trying to research accusations to the best of my ability.)

 

This is fascinating to me.

 

Yeah, it's mind-boggling bordering on terrifying to me.

[Mergath]

I'll definitely vote for my party's candidate this year. Minnesota tends to lean one way most of the time, but enough websites are reporting it as a swing state this year that I'm not taking any chances. The candidate I'll be voting for certainly wasn't my first (or second or third...) choice, but I believe the other candidate would be downright dangerous. 

 

And after reading today that Clinton is leading in Georgia, I think the map this year might look quite different than it has in the past. Anything could happen. 

[Ravin]

The polls are showing that my state, usually pretty deep red, is a swing state for the Presidential election.

 

So I'll be voting the party line for my party, even though when I do those online quizzes that compare what you actually think to the policies of the candidates I line up much more strongly with one of the third parties.

 

However, as time goes on, and as I have researched and looked at actual facts rather than surface hype and headlines, I actually feel better about my party's candidate, even though I feel quite jaded with regard to the party itself.

[Alice]

I will vote. I grew up in a country where we did not have this right, and I consider it my duty to exercise this privilege.

It is difficult to answer your question without becoming political, which would be against board rules, but I will try my best:

 

The system is currently set up so that realistically there are only two choices. I vote for the candidate of the two whom I consider the better choice for the office.

If I find one person absolutely unacceptable for the office and do not think the other person is a great candidate, but would be the better one, I will vote for this second person. I will not throw my vote away on a third independent candidate who does not stand a chance, just to voice my opinion in protest; I consider it far more important to make sure the unacceptable person does not win. 

Unfortunately with the electoral college, my voice may not matter at all, since the president is not elected by popular vote. 

 

ETA: I am not affiliated with any political party, so there is no "my" party. 

 

 

This exactly. (Except the growing up in another country part). 

[Pam in CT]

I will vote. To me, to not vote means I have no right to complain about the outcome. I will not vote third party. I thought I might but have realized that I need to do what I can to keep an insane person out of office. Being in a swing state is relevant to this point. I don't like who I'll be voting for... but it is the better of two bad options for our country, imho.

 

I feel this way too.  (Also, related to what regentrude wrote above, there are many places in the world where people are putting their lives at risk for the right to vote, so it seems churlish or something to throw the right away).

 

 

It's very interesting, how many of these comments about "my vote not mattering because my state always goes ____ way" would play differently, if we did not have the Electoral College system.  I wonder if one silver lining out of this crazy season that's making so many people on both sides distressed will be bipartisan traction to change that system.

[MercyA]

I'm not affiliated with any political party. 

 

I'm a Christian, and I can't willfully and deliberately support evil. I don't expect perfection in a candidate, but I draw the line at supporting anyone who *openly endorses* evil. Not judging anyone else here, but I don't see how I personally can justify that before God. I have to ask myself, "How much evil does God need me to support to accomplish His will? How much evil does God want me to support in the hopes that good may come of it?" 

 

For too long much of my worldview was determined by American ideals rather than Biblical ones, and I'm trying to change that. 

 

I believe our duty in life is simple. "Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." If I do that, I don't need to worry and fret about the future. “It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings." We'll get exactly what we deserve as a country.

 

ETA: In case it's not obvious, I'm not voting.  ;)

Edited August 5, 2016 by MercyA