On elections, I see lots of strange beliefs about elections and I think most of them don't really hold up. One of them is the whole case I've talked about elsewhere on the site of our cult of majorities in modern America, people thinking that simple majorities are what makes democratic rule representative and fair specifically (because it's intuitive and obvious at a small scale, even though it doesn't really scale up past a few people).
A lot of people really do seem to think that they effect elections in some kind of spiritual way if not literally. Political science/economy used to have trouble with this because you'd get these retard autists making models where every voter is a rational self-interested utility maximizer and then it'd be a puzzle why anybody votes even though common sense and just talking to people explains it, people feel moral obligations to vote. But when you listen to them talk, a lot seem to implicitly think that it's not just a symbolic act or moral responsibility, it's like some gay sportsball shit where they feel like they somehow, individually, effected the outcome. Note that this never goes the other way.
The whole "you can't complain if you don't vote" one is another one that annoys me, because it's ass-backwards. You can't complain if you DO vote. You voting is giving your blessing to the system. This govt is going to exist either way, it's going to force me to live under its laws either way, participating is what marks the difference between a thing you consented to - including living by the consequences of your side losing - not the man who suffers it, protests but doesn't pretend at any point it's held up by anything other than raw force. Or "muh soldiers died for your right to vote." The last time they died for MY right to vote was in 17-fucking-76, if we count essentially defensive wars that weren't of choice 1812. The most recent and large scale time the US Army was deployed on my soil was 160 years ago to violently disband my government and occupy and destroy the land.
That one especially pisses people off, I think because punching a big hole in the cult of democracy - something that like all legitimating ideologies depends on being indoctrinated into it from birth - does land with them, and it raises the specter that the world is fundamentally unjust, which is a scary thought, especially for the non-religious (or people that have fused their religiosity with statism of some sort).
To me there is no case whatsoever for voting "strategically." Whether we're talking about "wasting" a vote (again, magical thinking) on third parties, voting for candidates you don't genuinely like, not voting for spoilers, etc. You subject it to two basic tests. Do you determine the actual outcome? No. "Swing Vote" is a comedy movie, not real life. And then, what would happen if everyone voted the way you did? Your side would win.
And like most of you have said, I don't see the lesser of two evils as being inherently better. For one, I think (again, very much against the spirit of our culture) that people should and don't judge things with the gravity of assuming that they are morally responsible for their actions, because they ARE. If you aren't willing to take up a rifle, evict a family of braceros, collect taxes, guard prisons, etc. then you have no business putting that work onto somebody else. That's what American democracy offers: you get all the credit and warm feels for picking winners and you never have to lose, never have to bear anything on your conscience. Never in my life have I ever heard anybody express actual shame or personal regret at having voted for a politician that turned out to be a stinker, only anger. You don't see it with me because I went through this test twelve years ago and I decided I wasn't going to vote. And voting for no evil can absolutely create good outcomes. Sinking your party can teach your party a lesson that it needs to change its course. Why would it ever if you don't hold it accountable? We have tons of examples within American history of parties going off the rails, crashing and burning and then the voters got what they wanted an election cycle or two later when a new party had to be constituted around the new underlying coalitions. Republicans are a prime example, the Whigs couldn't deliver anti-slavery politics consistently and got eaten by their base.
Anyways I guess what I'm saying is fuck normalfaggots. I haven't actually read him yet but I think my views on it are similar to Lysander Spooner, and he too had a habit of pissing people off by justing being... very morally consistent (supported the Confederates, supported slave revolt at the same time; was willing to separate entangled moral issues out instead of compromising any of them for the sake of others).
