If you are eligible to vote, and don’t, that is the same as a vote for the winner - whoever that is.
Nah, only half as strong.
Candidate A and Candidate B.
Vote for A: Candidate A has 1 vote
Vote for B: Candidate B has 1 vote
Vote for neither: 0 vote for either. Midway between the two outcomes.
That being said, voting for neither doesn’t make much sense for anyone in terms of outcome. If you prefer one outcome, it doesn’t make much sense to only use half of the strength of your vote to support that outcome.
Not voting makes more sense if you’re making the argument that the time spent voting isn’t worth the return you get.
No, it’s not. For the record, I’m a huge advocate of voting. I think everyone should vote for the candidate they believe in.
If you’re driving in a bus with 40 people voting on where to go, with 14 wanting to drive to a buffet, 16 wanting to drive off a cliff, and 15 saying that they don’t care enough to vote but they don’t really want to go to the buffet because they’re not hungry, yes, I am going to judge the 15 people who are content being driven off a cliff.
And before anyone judges this analogy because one option is objectively good while the other is objectively bad: Everyone is guaranteed to get food poisoning at the buffet. Now both options are objectively bad, but I’m still judging the people content with going over the cliff.
You can criticize the fact that they didn’t vote, I literally just said that I think everyone should vote. But that’s not the same as saying they did vote for the winner. If you’re mad that the bus is driven off a cliff, then be upset with the people that did vote for it.
This is excusing that I personally think your analogy is an oversimplification.
I am going to judge the 15 people who are content being driven off a cliff.
But you’ll happily sit on the bus, never questioning why you’re helping to maintain a system that results in such terrible options, and then blame others when that system you help to maintain comes back to bite you in the face.
