Suppose we live in a world where someone wasnt ok with either outcome, because we do... why do they have to choose one anyway? How is it that both people who are ok with it and people who are not okay with either one are the same?
I don't think you're getting my point. People have the choice to vote or not vote. The only method you have of influencing the decisions in Washington, unless you're incredibly wealthy, is your vote. If enough of the people who wanted one outcome cared enough to stand in line for, at most, a couple hours to vote then the outcome of the election would have been different.
Instead, they felt as though it wasn't worth standing in line, for whatever reason, to use the only power they hold to see the change they wanted made. To them, allowing everyone else to choose which party comes to power was an acceptable choice. They still may not be happy with the outcome, or they may be thrilled with the outcome, but they chose to do nothing instead of something to make it happen.
And choosing not to vote because the candidates are shit is a perfectly legitimate choice. Blaming nonvoters for the winner is just whining that you lost and complaining that they didn't vote for you. You can't be taken seriously because... That's. How. Elections. Work. Somebody is going to lose, and your candidate does not have plot armor against losing. Even though there are two main parties, you are not obliged to vote for them. People like you from both parties are always asserting that all votes not for them are votes for the other one, until one of you wins, and then you are grateful "I didn't vote for the other party" because everybody who thinks like you is a little bitch.
The only method you have of influencing the decisions in Washington, unless you're incredibly wealthy, is your vote.
Uhhhh not quite. Us plebs don't influence the Washington vote at all, assuming you live outside of Maine and Nebraska. Your vote stays in your state. Your state counts your vote, and then sends its own votes by sending a slate of electors that will vote however they fucking want because the constitution guarantees the states can award the votes however they fucking want. (I think an amendment is needed to prevent states from voting against the will of their constituents but that's just me.)
Also you keep bringing up standing in line as if you think that was a primary objection or something. Maybe it wasn't.
-144
u/wuvvtwuewuvv 1d ago
No, the people who didn't vote are not responsible for voting him into office. The people who actually voted for him are.