I think you confuse political apathy for support for a different politics. Yes, there will be some people who will sit out because they’re waiting for a better candidate, but the reality the majority of people who sit out do so because they are just too disengaged with the process. You dont rally those by giving them someone with better politics. The way you rally those people is with someone who shakes them out of their disinterest. Essentially, The Rock.
There are also a whole host of structural issues that make running a third party campaign really difficult. Even national campaigns in this country are really a series of local elections. Running a national campaign without the local infrastructure that already exists in all localities through the party that gave you their nomination is near impossible. But there is also the game theory aspect, in that third party candidates are expected to do poorly, so even if one represented your politics voting for one is in practice little more than a protest vote and many people refuse to do that.
Do you honestly believe Trump cares how many vote for him? If only 5 people voted in the whole of the US and 2 of tem voted for him along with his own vote he’d claim some kind of massive victory declaring the people have made their decision.
Personally, for the sake of the planet I think people really need to do whatever they can with their vote to ensure Trump is removed from the Whitehouse.
No, I get that non voters are a mixed demographic. But my point was about whether there was really a significant number of the electorate who hold political views that are left of centre. If there was, wouldn’t a movement emerge to represent them? Particularly in a country that boasts the 1st amendment. But now I’m expected to believe they get assassinated before they can create any meaningful change.
The main reasons people don’t vote fall into categories of, lack of knowledge, lack of interest, their vote wont make a difference, or disillusionment. It is clear in the discussions in here that disillusionment will be the primary reason for not voting.
For an intelligent, politically passionate person to abstain in the face of heinous president for me is a morals/ethics question. You can take a George Carlin approach stick two fingers up at the system and chose not the vote (as the system is rigged you are going to get fucked either way). But that is a moral decision.
Your vote is a your tool to implement change. Sanders has failed twice to convince enough voters and thats a reflection of where the US (and democrats) are politically. Its not the rights or wrongs of socialism.
Not voting does not implement change. You get lost in the noise of the rest of America that simply can’t be bothered, or does not care.
There is significant support for left of center views and policies. Many analyses would show that is where the median voter is. But America is a bit schizophrenic over these issues, and often not well informed on them, and so that doesn’t translate well into supporting someone who openly embraces any sort of socialist adjacent label.
But there are also really challenging structural issues that lock in a two party system that would make many voters ignore an insurgent new party they felt represented more accurately.
Just because you didn’t understand it, doesn’t mean my point is wrong.
It’s perfectly fine for you to take the moral high ground
or what you think that is. Just don’t constantly use ‘taking the moral high ground’ as a form of insult to others you and your morals don’t agree with.
With all due respect do you really believe this? Take a look at the 2016 Democratic Party votes Clinton v Samders in W Virginia. Sanders won every county - Clinton got the nomination. Same thing happened in many other States.
Does each and every vote represent the community in which it was cast, or is the system rigged to make some votes more valuable than others?
I am not opposed to voting as a means to express a preference - I am opposed to voting in a system that pretends to offer alternatives through a charade of “democracy” every 4 years.
I don’t know what you’re trying to say or demonstrate there, but I presume it is something about Super Delegates. Yes, Hillary was the establishment candidate of the party. But even ignoring the super delegates she beat Sanders in every conceivable show of popularity. She had more votes cast for her (17 million vs 13 million), won more states/territories according to votes cast in those states (34 to 23) and won more pledged delegates (the way state size is weighted in the final determination - 2200 to 1850).
I dont like the US electoral college system, there are better ways for democracy to occur and reform is needed. But ultimately my perspective of the reason Sanders was not put forward is majority of Americans believe socialism is a bad thing. Being risk averse Clinton/Biden get put forward to appeal to the majority which are conservative in nature.
As I see it the votes for Sanders are important, as it has created a momentum. One which will hopefully grow. But there is a need for new faces and new visions. Not 80 year old men. I see Sanders as the guy that opens the door for the next generation to be successful. Like turning a tanker it takes time.