If we want to move non-voters and third party voters we need a better message than "shame on you". No matter how unrepentantly awful and shamefully unforgivable you feel non-voters and third party voters are, that message don't work.
I agree as a principle for organizing and activating voters, but personally, it's beyond annoying that non-voters or protest voters need to have their egos coddled into doing the right thing instead of just...doing the right thing because they have the power to do so.
At the end of the day, presidential elections are two-person races. Not voting for one is support for the other. Non- and third-party voters don't want to acknowledge this because they don't want to feel responsible for anything that comes out of that election, but the math is as simple as that.
I find it funny how people will yell your Presidential vote is wasted if you don't vote for someone who has a chance to win, but somehow not think the Presidential vote is a waste in a state that is clearly dominated by one candidate and that other candidate doesn't have a chance to win....
I think this cuts both ways. On the one hand, yes, if you live in a deep red state or a deep blue state, then your individual vote will likely not change the outcome of who wins your state. On the other hand, we don't live in a vacuum, and what voters do in deep red or blue states can affect voting attitudes in purple states. The more people there are in blue states, for example, that talk about how they're casting protest votes for third-party candidates, the more it creates a narrative and a permission structure for people in swing states to do the same. The idea of "well I live in a swing state so I can't do what they're doing, I'll just vote Dem no matter what" doesn't take hold with people the same way as "I don't like either party so I'm voting Green/not voting at all" does.
Voted Sanders in 2016.
No regrets.
Wont make the same mistake twice and will be voting for whatever candidate the DLC chooses so as to avoid more trump, but damnit if I dont believe it defeats the purpose of voting.
It's supposed to be an individual choice, not a group decision.
Not who you think will win but who would do the best job.
*sigh*
Oh well...
I mean, voting is a group decision. You don't get 300 million different presidents come Election Day, you get one person with the biggest group of votes.