Ask Your Question today
I have voted occasionally if I think one of the candidates is markedly better than the others... but mostly in elections all the choices are horrible. Better to not vote cause you hate both or to choose the sort of lesser of two evils?
If you live in America, you can always do a write in and vote for...say..."my cat would do a better job than you dumb cunts."
If you don't vote at all you give up your right to bitch about the outcome and the policies and actions derived therefrom. It is always better to vote for the lesser of two evils than it is to abstain.
"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing"
Vote for left wing partys that will be fine. People died to give us the right to vote so if you dont vote just remember this.
Even if you don't like any of the candidates - including independents and small parties - register to vote and spoil your ballot. It's better than not voting because the state is forced to count spoiled ballots, so they can't assume you're apathetic. Spoiling your ballot is not illegal.
That said: voting is a state-sponsored, safe, totally unthreatening way to use your voice. If you really want to make your voice powerful, engage in some kind of grassroots activism or protesting behaviour.
When that happens you're supposed to just scratch your ballot. That way you still technically voted.
I'd only suggest voting when you truly agree with one (or more) of the policies of that candidate.
If you feel all the candidates policies and promises (lol) are not for you, then I'd suggest not voting.
Some countries make it mandatory to vote and illegal to place 'donkey votes'. In this case you should vote for the best of the worst, but remember that you don't want either so therefore the outcome will be irrelevant to you anyway.
Hope that helps.
You can also write to candidates and ask them to implement things in which you believe to be helpful ;)