In the American political system, voting for someone doesn’t necessarily mean that you are “OK” with them. The common view is that our elections are a vote as to which of two evils are the lesser.
Folks who are in different echo chambers than the ones in which we dwell could well have believed, based on the noise coming from the right-wing “news” and social media rhetoric filling their echo chambers, that Trump still was the lesser evil.
My mother-in-law voted for the Glorious Leader in 2024, despite having grown to feel betrayed by him, because she thought Harris was THAT bad, and she didn’t believe that voting third party or leaving that line of the ballot were options, and peer pressure obliged her to still turn out to vote.
Hell, I’m a person who has only once cast a vote for a major party candidate on a major party line on the ballot (and I regret that one occasion), because in non-competitive races I can’t bring myself to settle on voting for the lesser evil.
(I will, however, be voting for D’s on the D party line in 26 and 27, just because I think the GOP has become evil enough that bolstering the published vote tally of the GOP’s opponent is a worty exercise, at least in the short term.)
The popular vote tells you the overall numbers of people supporting or opposing Trump and how many people couldn’t be bothered to vote. Not voting because you know your side will lose is just lazy.
You have the option to spoil your ballot or do a write in ballot, so I’d argue that voting for someone is you saying you’re okay with them. Arguing otherwise seems like playing wordgames to try and justify your decision.
Eta:
This section is kind of bizarre. If you’re a halfway intelligent person, every vote for a politician is a choice of the lesser evil. We’re voting for people and all people have flaws. This isn’t a uniquely American issue, but Americans seem to like using this as an excuse.
Actually, in my state at least, there are constraints in casting write-in votes, and spoiling one’s ballot can get it completely tossed out.
I’ve usually made a point of voting third party (or on third-party lines, since in Connecticut candidates can be nominated on multiple party lines) for the least objectionable to me third-party candidate as a proxy for a none-of-the-above vote.
When there is no third-party option, I’ll usually cast a blank ballot…but that really is throwing away my vote because blank votes are not explicitly tallied or tracked for the results.
In Connecticut, there are constraints for write-in votes. Valid write-in options have to have registered with the state. If you cast for someone not on the valid write-in list, your entire ballot is considered spoiled and discarded.
(Interestingly, there was one Senate race in CT several years ago where I was so disgusted with the D and R options, and where the third parties weren’t running anyone, that I did the paperwork so I could write in my own name. Somehow I drew over 6000 votes – either the result of sloppy tallying or benefitting from having a common name – and came in third. I regret that now, as the D victor has turned out to be a not-horrible senator. I still suspect I could have done a better job than he has…but I’m less certain of that now than I was then.)
That’s a fair criticism, but it’s one that’s not relevant to the point I’m trying to make.
A vote for a candidate does not mean they are “OK” with them. For many voters it’s an expression that they are less OK with the candidate’s opponent.
When I cast D votes this November and next, those votes should absolutely NOT be interpreted as my being “OK” with particular candidates. The correct interpretation of my upcoming D votes will be as an expression of my belief that Trump’s iteration of the GOP is an existential threat to the US.
BTW, don’t forget that when looking at American election behavior, you have to remember that the US, for the most part, doesn’t have competitive elections. I think I’ve only missed two votes in my adult life (one short-notice local vote that I was unable to get an absentee ballot for, and today’s primary because I botched the timing of updating my registration), and in that time, I’ve only encountered two or three general election races that could have been considered competitive.
(That tally doesn’t include some ballot initiatives that have been competitive, and the occasional competitive primary.)
In such an environment…even though I disagree with the thought process, it’s not unreasonable for an individual to decide that it’s not worth bothering to go vote.
That that’s a rational line of thought is an artifact of the brokenness of the American political architecture.
As far as I’m aware, most countries don’t give you the opportunity to issue a disclaimer or an explanation of your vote alongside the vote. They just count the number of people voting for each candidate.
This may be the story you tell yourself, but its not the effect of your actions.
Eta: I find it bizarre how so many Americans don’t want to take responsibility for how they vote. My friends from other countries will say i voted for X, Y, or Z because the other person was an idiot or something to that effect. From Americans, not just Maphiostos, its often this lengthy manifesto explaining how I voted for X, Y, or Z, but what it really means is this totally different thing.
…and in many other countries, there’s a greater incidence of competitive elections, there are frequently more than two potentially viable parties, and for national elections the constituencies/districts are frequently small enough that the marginal value of a single vote can often be materially non-zero.
It’s worth keeping in mind that I think that most American voters also tend to vote for X because Y is an idiot (or because it would annoy Y voters), and arguments such as mine are more limited to a visible minority of armchair wonks who spend too much time arguing online and engaging in mental masturbation about political game theory.
Nevertheless, I still think that when placing blame on Americans for Trump 2.0 and its associated evils, focusing on how individuals voted (if they even voted) is myopic.
Americans’ failure is in letting our political architecture get this bad, devolving into a political pendulum fueled by unlimited money and deceptive campaigning to become a wrecking ball that has apparently destroyed the checks and balances intended to keep the system from running amok.
It has always amazed me that a large country that is 250 years old only offers two real choices to its voters. I have voted for 4 different Canadian parties over the years, all of which I felt were worthy of governing. Maybe the GOP and the Dems need to splinter to give more choice to voters.
That’s largely an artifact of having first-past-the-post elections to determine President or Governor, and the inbrededness of local vs state vs federal politicking.
The duopoly wasn’t as bad a few decades ago, before 24/7 news cycle and social media made it difficult for politicians to collaborate and compromise. But now, where it’s all “them” vs “us”, and “they” can’t be allowed to be seen winning…
Multi party systems work better in a parliamentary system where a party with a small number of seats can have significant power in a minority government. If Canada had direct election of a national leader there would be only two real choices.
Canada is not a republic so I was talking more about just having more choice in the parties you could vote for.
I can remember a time when Canada’s three main parties all had leaders who I would view as good potential PMs. That is not the case today but things could change.
In any election in Canadian history has a party other than the Liberal or Conservative (or Progressive Conservative) had a chance of a parliamentary majority?
It’s really the election of an executive in a first-past-the-post election environment that pushes the architecture towards having only two parties over the long term.
In such an environment, if you get two parties with overlapping interests competing against a third party, the two overlapping parties split the vote allowing the non-overlapped party to win. So, instead of actual parties, you end up with intra-party squabbles and a duopoly.
Also if you need an explicit coalition government, being able to vote for the part of the coalition that aligns with you gives the leaders a sense of where things actually stand and whether they need to tack left or right. Or at least should, the idiocy that Labour has gone through recently challenges that notion.
Eh, NDP’s had some really awesome leadership through the years and never really made it federally. I seem to barely remember that Ed Broadbent was a class act.
But I also seem to remember when the NDP was a blue collar party instead of the far left wing.
Why do you assume that those who didn’t vote would’ve voted for Harris?
How many of those who didn’t vote would’ve voted for a 3rd party candidate but realize the nature of today’s politics and knew that their vote would not have changed the outcome and they had better things to do with their time?
