Breaking with past practice, President-elect Donald J. Trump has not agreed to disclose the donors paying for his planning effort or to limit their contributions.
Which would “change” if the other side won.
It’s a decision to not be involved which means accepting either side but not preferring one. A little different than supporting one side over another.
How does a non voters position change based on who wins?
Its not “not being involved”. Its coming to the conclusion that the best thing that person can do for themselves and their family is to not vote for either major party.
Some who come to that conclusion vote third party so they can help a group, others just dont vote at all but its the same thing.
I came to the conclusion that voting third party was best for me and my close ones, but ended up voting for kamala because I thought it would help more people in my community.
If you have the privilege that no matter which party wins, you will be alright, then I believe you should vote third party, or at least vote for whoever actually represents you best.
A non-voters vote changes because people say the abstainers effectively “voted” for whoever won by not participating.
Your personal belief is cool, however a full third of the eligible voters (minus the 3-4% that third/write ins got) did not cast a ballot, and in so doing chose not to be involved.
I hope you also vote for and support the third party candidates that were surely on your ballot for lower positions since of course a serious third party would have plans for ground support before trying to just get into the highest elected position if they actually believe in offering another option.
There is no such thing as doing nothing when it comes to voting. Theres no middle ground or push. Each different decision has different meaning. Probably different weight too but a single persons vote isnt going to vary much regardless.
I did vote third party for the rest of the ballot, but if I could go back and change it I would have change my presidential vote to third party. Unfortunately I let the hyperbole coming from the democrats actually scare me and I felt differently then than I do now.
We all know its a fucked system, all actions we take are very unlikely to change things when looked at individually. When we consider groups of people, then I think the best bet to change things is to vote third party. The democrats this election treated third party voters the same way republicans treat illegal immigrants. Only one of those groups can cast votes though.
Third party voters are totally cool with whatever outcome since they know their election nominee has no chance without any third party support from local positions.
Make whatever rationalizing you need to do but if you know what both major parties stand for and you vote third, then you’re tacitly saying that the actual outcome doesn’t bother you as much as the perception you have of being slighted for not doing any of the foundational support work both other parties do.
I get it, you had a reason you couldn’t swallow either pill, but that means you have complicity with whatever the outcome is by your choice.
And the third party protests still can’t garner the 5% they need to be given federal boosts, which just goes to show how little planning and support goes into it.
Stand by your beliefs by all means, but let me know when your protest vote actually changes either major parties stance on anything since it hasn’t in…
Ever. Which means third party people are just doing the protest dance over and over with no results.
Third party voters are cool with whatever happening the same way someone might be cool with dieing by drowning or dieing by fire, if those are the only two choices.
In that situation would you really shit on people who opt not to make the choice at all or write in silly things like “not die” or “nap time”?
Surely they would have more impact on the future if they chose, but does that much matter? What if everyone chose to make no choice or to vote for naptime? Does the game just fall apart then? Who knows!
They did make a decision.
Which would “change” if the other side won. It’s a decision to not be involved which means accepting either side but not preferring one. A little different than supporting one side over another.
How does a non voters position change based on who wins?
Its not “not being involved”. Its coming to the conclusion that the best thing that person can do for themselves and their family is to not vote for either major party.
Some who come to that conclusion vote third party so they can help a group, others just dont vote at all but its the same thing.
I came to the conclusion that voting third party was best for me and my close ones, but ended up voting for kamala because I thought it would help more people in my community.
If you have the privilege that no matter which party wins, you will be alright, then I believe you should vote third party, or at least vote for whoever actually represents you best.
A non-voters vote changes because people say the abstainers effectively “voted” for whoever won by not participating.
Your personal belief is cool, however a full third of the eligible voters (minus the 3-4% that third/write ins got) did not cast a ballot, and in so doing chose not to be involved.
I hope you also vote for and support the third party candidates that were surely on your ballot for lower positions since of course a serious third party would have plans for ground support before trying to just get into the highest elected position if they actually believe in offering another option.
There is no such thing as doing nothing when it comes to voting. Theres no middle ground or push. Each different decision has different meaning. Probably different weight too but a single persons vote isnt going to vary much regardless.
I did vote third party for the rest of the ballot, but if I could go back and change it I would have change my presidential vote to third party. Unfortunately I let the hyperbole coming from the democrats actually scare me and I felt differently then than I do now.
We all know its a fucked system, all actions we take are very unlikely to change things when looked at individually. When we consider groups of people, then I think the best bet to change things is to vote third party. The democrats this election treated third party voters the same way republicans treat illegal immigrants. Only one of those groups can cast votes though.
Third party voters are totally cool with whatever outcome since they know their election nominee has no chance without any third party support from local positions.
Make whatever rationalizing you need to do but if you know what both major parties stand for and you vote third, then you’re tacitly saying that the actual outcome doesn’t bother you as much as the perception you have of being slighted for not doing any of the foundational support work both other parties do.
I get it, you had a reason you couldn’t swallow either pill, but that means you have complicity with whatever the outcome is by your choice.
And the third party protests still can’t garner the 5% they need to be given federal boosts, which just goes to show how little planning and support goes into it.
Stand by your beliefs by all means, but let me know when your protest vote actually changes either major parties stance on anything since it hasn’t in… Ever. Which means third party people are just doing the protest dance over and over with no results.
Third party voters are cool with whatever happening the same way someone might be cool with dieing by drowning or dieing by fire, if those are the only two choices.
In that situation would you really shit on people who opt not to make the choice at all or write in silly things like “not die” or “nap time”?
Surely they would have more impact on the future if they chose, but does that much matter? What if everyone chose to make no choice or to vote for naptime? Does the game just fall apart then? Who knows!
Matter of perspective.