[dragonwriter]

> Really wish the definition of democracy included by default the right to vote that you object strongly enough to significant options not to vote for any of them.

It does. Even with places with mandatory voting, you usually are only required to turn in a ballot paper, it can still not actually vote for any of the options.

Of course, that's just ceding your involvement in the choice (as it should be -- you are, in effect, voting no preference between the available options.)

[metaphorm]

there's a very large difference between "no preference" and "I find all the options unacceptable".

[dragonwriter]

"I find all the options equally unacceptable" is exactly the same as "No preference".

Usual election systems already support the case where you find the options unequally unacceptable.

[nxzero]

"I have no preference how I die."

-vs-

"I find any method of death equal unacceptable."

______

Yes, it's true everyone dies, but we're not talking about death and it's obvious that it's possible to have a voting system that's able to tell the difference between indifference, objection, and support of the potential candidates/parties in a general election.

With most voting systems if a single person votes, it's a valid election. If the majority decent, it's still a valid election.

It should be that if the majority decent, the election is nullified - otherwise it's a recipe for a toxic political environment.

[metaphorm]

"equally unacceptable" is not what "no preference" means. i'm astonished you're trying to argue these are equivalent.

"differently unacceptable" is also a terrible situation though! this is the entire point of my argument. I may find some candidates more bad than others. being forced to vote for less bad is still being disenfranchised to a significant extent.

[dragonwriter]

No, having the opportunity to vote for less bad is being enfranchised. The franchise is an entitlement for to have an option you like provided for you by someone else, not is it an entitlement to have your most preferred option be successful through the filtering that happens in the political process you are entitled to participate in before the stage of a general election ballot is reached.

FPTP is a bad system of aggregating preferences where there are more than two options in principle, and produces bad effects in the filtering (and voting) process because people adjust for the bad way that it aggregates preferences. And there are lots of sensible, obvious, and proven ways to make that better. But none of them guarantee you a situation where you aren't forced either to not vote it to vote for a less-bad alternative (though ranked ballots methods move some of the filtering process into the general election, down-ballot votes are still votes.)

[metaphorm]

the voting franchise is a fundamental right of citizens in a democracy. the fact that you're referring to it as an entitlement is misinformed, and in fact, quite warped and reveals a deep misunderstanding of our form of government.

the state we find ourselves in this year is abundant evidence of the terrible malfunctioning of the American political process. the system we have in place now struggles to reach even the basic requirements of legitimacy and consent of the governed.

what does popular sovereignty mean anyway if large majorities of the populous are very very very unhappy with their government?