[dgoodell]

I used to see it more like that. But the reality is that one of those candidates is going to get elected whether you vote or not. So not voting is basically just letting other people decide for you. Which is rational if you genuinely believe that will make no difference.

[_heimdall]

I generally agree with this. I personally feel like this is an extreme scenario that was so easy to avoid. I have voted in every election I was eligible to vote in, including when I lived overseas.

I don't expect to agree 100% with a candidate, heck I'm happy when I agree with two or three policies that I find important. But I just can't accept having to pick between two directions that I think are both fundamentally bad and dangerous.

[throwaway89336]

I guess the question is if they are equally bad.

If one side will cause significantly more damage than the other, why would you not want to limit the damage?

If you have examined the political agendas of both candidates and think they will cause equal harm, then I see your point. But I don't see how it can apply to this election.

[_heimdall]

Is it really possible to quantify the level of bad each side will lead to in the future? And can it be quantified with such accuracy that it can be compared fairly?

In this election I only see bad outcomes from either candidate (I'm mainly thinking Biden and Trump, though the same for Harris if she is picked).

I can't quantify the bad and I don't know what metrics I would even use. Lets say I thought one would likely lead to economic problems on the scale of the housing crisis and the other would commit a number of troops to die fighting in a foreign war. How would I weigh the damage of those scenarios?