Read on Twitter
Believe it or not, I don& #39;t disagree that strongly with @JayCaruso or @DavidAFrench about the right to vote for whomever you choose, or not vote at all. I just reject any notion that such an act can be divorced from its obvious consequences as some sort of higher principle. /1
If you are a person who says, and genuinely believes, that Joe Biden and Donald Trump are completely interchangeable or equivalently evil, well, okay. Don& #39;t pick either of them. I think these are morally obtuse positions, but okay, it& #39;s your right. /2
But to say "I do so because my vote must completely represent me and my values" is childish in a system *designed* to force you to aggregate your interests with others in a "close enough" solution. It& #39;s not just parties that do this; that& #39;s by constitutional design as well. /3
The Constitution is designed to defeat particularism, and to force you, at election time, to decide which candidates are *closest* to what you want. It also allows you to opt out and outsource your vote to others by default, as is your right. /4
This is to magnify the victories of the winners and to create some unity around the results afterward. "I dissent because the candidates are utterly equivalent" is a basic right, but imo - again *IMO* - the times when this is true are so rare as to be almost meaningless. /5
Also, "I dissent since neither candidate represents me perfectly" is a basic right, too. But again, by that metric, you should never vote unless you get *exactly what you want*, which is not what the system was built to create. But sure, hold your breath, if that& #39;s your thing. /6
