|"Orthrus," by Jin-Rikkun|
In case you missed it in the comments on the previous post, Quid wrote:
Ah, but the key is... if it is Hilary vs. Trump, how do you vote? Or Hilary vs Cruz? Not the first time I've been confronted with only voting against someone, not voting for someone.
I have never submitted to pressure to restrict my vote only to candidates of the major parties. I understand (and do not need any readers to explain it to me again) the logic behind strategic voting, but it is not the only rationale for voting and it is not mine.
The very first presidential election in which I was old enough to participate was 1992. (I missed 1988 by two months.) My major party choices were President George H.W. Bush, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton (representing the Democratic Party's lurch to the right for strategic purposes), and the independent candidate Ross Perot. None of these candidates were speaking about militarism and the profitable industry we make of war, the damage our constant wars do to human life and to the environment that sustains us. The only candidate talking about that was J. Quinn Brisben, the Socialist Party's candidate, and so, voting in New York City where write-in ballots were counted, I wrote him in.
So if the major parties offer us the choice of Trump versus Hillary Clinton, then the major parties simply show us once again they don't deserve their hegemony. We are utterly foolish in allowing these two parties to be the only governing parties (perhaps even in allowing parties at all, but that's a more complex question), and I for one refuse to buy into it. The sanest and most humanitarian platform for the executive branch of the federal government, without Bernie Sanders as a candidate and arguably even with him, is that of Jill Stein and the Green Party, and I would vote for that candidate, donate to that candidate, and speak on behalf of that platform with conviction. I won't vote for the violent nationalist who lacks a high school level understanding of civics much less policy, and I won't vote for the amoral neoliberal warmonger following the agony of Iraq, Libya, and Honduras, all of which (and more) bear the scar of her sociopathic judgment in which triumph alone is good. No, if the major parties suggest to me that my only viable choices are madness or empire, I will say, "You are wrong. I vote for sanity and decency."
And woe to the fool who tries to shout at me about the dire consequences of my vote without holding themselves accountable for endorsing madness or empire. They should better join me in voting for the good (which might lead them to support a different candidate than the one I support, which is splendid) and fighting a system that seeks to monopolize power on behalf of corrupt institutions.
Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, they are not "voting against the worse of two evils," they are participating voluntarily in the sordor. I don't call such a vote "strategic" (since it works to our undoing), nor wise; I call it capitulation, I call it weakness, and having exercised my own franchise responsibly, I push back on the righteous "strategic voter" and the duopoly.