Now imagine more than two choices!

Ranked Choice Voting.
Where we don't just have to hold our noses and pick from 2. https://represent.us/

A video about it- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfQij4aQq1k

I'd be willing to take the worse of two goods at this point.

Protest and elect. Emphasis on protest.

1. Get as involved as you can with activist efforts locally.
2. Organize, network, focus on building solidarity.
3. Vote at primaries for the most progressive candidate.
4. Don't punch down
5. Don't punch left.

Then vote in all elections including local, special, midterms and especially primaries not just general. Choose progressives.

We are where we are, because voter apathy. When you don't vote, other pick the candidates for you.

Texas just had to choose between Talarico and Crockett. Both sounded like great candidates to me and hope that Crockett can continue her path in politics (albeit without the AIPAC issue she has)

Harm reduction. If forced into a binary choice, I’d rather lose a finger than lose a hand.

No, it's not possible with unlimited corporate "donations".

Rs are left hand, Ds are right hand, AmazonEnronMega is the puppeteer.

They've made bribery legal, it's blatant and right out in the open. They all shared the stage, everyone clapped, thunderous applause

Voters can't out bribe them, they're too busy trying to make a living on half the pay their parents had

How will you get them to outlaw bribery again? Not legally.

(see Super PACs and Citizens United)

I don't know, but I absolutely support any attempt to find out.

Outside of the realm of politics, but one choice I've made somewhat recently that was "better of two goods" was picking a Linux distro

Half of Americans actively vote for the more evil candidate. That’s the problem you need to fix first.

I really wish I was exaggerating but it’s hard to describe it any other way.

It’s time to give up on this idea, given the outrage culture, the death of journalism.

We could have a race of Fred Roger’s vs fred rogers and someone would find or make up a scandal and half the internet will follow. For the foreseeable future all candidates appear to be evil, whether they are different from before or not, so our choice is who appears less evil.

Then there’s the death of the platform. Candidates compete to see how little they can say, to not give their opponents anything to go on, so all future candidates will not appear to have a good platform and our choice is who is less evil

Thats basically communism and socialism for me. I believe socialism would be better but its two goods either way.

What about the "neutral of two mehs"?

I've been an Unaffiliated Independent since I first registered to vote in 1977, and I have NEVER voted for a candidate that I really like, at least not for President. Every single election has been the better of two evils, and often there wasn't even two, and often there wasn't even one. I haven't been even mildly interested in any of the candidates we've had in the 21st Century, except maybe Bernie, and he's never really had a chance anyway.

I like AOC, and a couple of others. I've swing hard into the Progressive side these days. Time to balance the scale away from Conservatives for at least a half century. I'll be dead by then.

That would imply nice things are possible. Surely you must choose between being against mexican rapist trans pet eaters or pro mexican rapist trans pet eaters as your 2 binary options.

Yes.

Anybody who says otherwise is likely (on some level) attempting to convince others to crush their hopes of a better world being possible.

I think a lot of people relate to that feeling. Most people don’t just want the “least bad” option — they’d rather feel like they’re choosing something genuinely good.

Everyone is talking about ranked choice and other options, I don't have problems with that, but I'd like to say this:

I think if 80-90% of people voted for that lesser evil, then the greater evil would know that they have no chance, and shift themselves to get more votes. Either the candidate will change policies, or the party will dump those candidates and get someone new.

Problem is, both evils have equal chances of winning, so they have no reason to change significantly.

That's what surprises me. Why's the split 50/50 (±2% max)