Is it morally wrong to cast a protest vote? | The Tylt
The 2016 presidential election features two major party nominees with the highest negative favorability ratings in modern political history. Many Americans refuse to choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and are instead protesting with write-in ballots, voting for third-party candidates, or just not voting at all. But critics are labeling such efforts as a wasted vote in a close election with incredibly high stakes. Are protest votes principled or pathetic? Read more and vote.
Is it morally wrong to cast a protest vote?
Charles M. Blow is not having it. He and other liberals argue that only one of the two major party candidates will be president, and a protest vote is just a vote for Donald Trump.
Furthermore, many argue that the third-party candidates are simply not qualified for the job. The Green Party's Jill Stein has never held elected office, and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson has disgraced himself with his lack of knowledge about world affairs—which he cavalierly describes in this video as "having an Aleppo moment."
But others say the outcry over protest votes is just more of the mainstream political powers-that-be trying to frighten voters into sticking with the status quo. Third-party supporters argue that there's no way to break the two-party system without supporting outsider candidates.
Especially in this election cycle, protest voters are drawing enormous amounts of outrage.
But is calling voters "selfish" and "childish" really the way to bring them over to voting for one of the major party nominees?
Are we really saying people don't have a right to vote for anyone besides the Democratic and Republican nominees?