3 ms·
> If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home. Oh, certainly. But very few people dislike both candidates equally. I didn't
by untog 9y ago
> If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home.
Oh, certainly. But very few people dislike both candidates equally. I didn't think Clinton was a particularly good candidate, but I was extremely concerned about the prospect of Trump being President. In that situation, my most sensible path is to vote for Clinton, despite my reservations. A vote for a third party would be a waste unless the system was changed in a way that would make it meaningful. All that said, I live in New York, so my vote doesn't make a damn difference anyway.
- craftyguy 9y ago>> > If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home. > Oh, certainly. but then you said: > A vote for a third party would be a waste So, which is it?
- untog 9y agoYour citation missed my very next word after "certainly", which was "but". My clarification was that few people oppose both equally. If you oppose them equally then a third party vote is your best option. If you consider one to be a lesser evil, your best option is to vote for them. Just my opinion, of course, and one that is heavily biased as a result of the 2016 election.