It's ridiculous to think they are equally destructive.
...is it? McCain will destroy this nation economically and militarily. Our economy because of inaction, our military by over-extension and possibly even war with Iran. Obama will destroy this nation economically and militarily. Our economy with repressive taxes that will destroy the economy, as well as resistance to anything but a very narrow branch of energy independence, and militarily by calling Iraq a lost war, pulling out of it, and allow the world to become quickly a far more dangerous place in the aftermath.
They are equally destructive, the only difference is the method of destructive. It's like getting to choose the method of your death to be the electric chair or firing squad. They will both kill you, it's only the time, tension, and method that will be different. Obama and McCain ARE equally destructive. Which means your next point...
At that point, you choose the lesser of the two evils.
...in addition to being sad (though probably realist), is a non-issue. You're asking me to choose the next destroyer of the world, vote Hitler or vote Napoleon, destruction by planet killing asteroid or by nuclear winter. What kind of option is that? Further, who am I to decide such a thing??
There is no 'vote of no confidence'---NONE. Work to get that added to the ballot, I think a lot of Americans would appreciate it and it would send a clear signal to the two ruling parties; I'm for it. However, not voting is tacit support to the election results---you're willing to sit back and let others dictate who will lead the country. If that's the case, you should sit back and say nothing as the country prospers or flounders or falls apart.
Okay, I have no money, but I can speak moderately well and type up very good (at least, so I've been told) and persuasive arguments, and I tend to be bound by what I consider good and just. So...I have no idea how to start such a movement or how to get it passed, but I'll do whatever I can to help with it. Have you any idea how we could see about getting this done, or anyone you know we could talk to? I'll seriously give it everything I've got, I just need a little help getting into a group that has the power to do it (since I, myself, alone, do not.)
As for your argument; it's incorrect. You suppose that by "sitting back" I'm "letting" it happen. My counter to that is that by "participating" you are "legitimizing" it.
In the end, we're saying nearly the same thing, but from opposite perspectives; yours from the realist, my from the idealist. The middle ground between us is what you would propose - a vote of no confidence. What you fail to realize is that there IS such a vote on our ballots...in a way. NOT voting. What's the percentage of Americans that don't vote? 40%? 60%? 80%...? There are lazy people among them, but there are also a LOT of disenchanted people, a lot of people who have lost hope, and a lot of people that refuse to pick the "lesser of two evils."
We SHOULD be able to pick the better of two goods. In fact, that is the idea of voting; to pick the best man/woman for the job! No where in the Constitution does it say we are to pick the lesser evil, rather, the Founders hoped that the best possible person would be the one always picked. To "settle" for the lesser of two evils is to abandon what things this nation was founded on. It's more akin to supporting the nobility and aristocracy, to see who they present to us and, like good little sheep, to vote for the one that is the most palatable.
How can you call that a choice?!
No, no one cares how few voters there are---Dubya still claimed a mandate and he had no where close to enough people to obtain such 'political capital'.
No one cares how few voters there are...as long as people are still voting. I didn't say "what if only 50,000 people voted", I said what if NO ONE voted. If neither Obama nor McCain got a single vote.
That WOULD say something (for one thing, Congress would have to elect the President since, if both candidates get 0 popular vote, then neither gets a majority in any state, and thus neither would get any Electoral College votes, and thus neither would win the election. It would be a draw.) That would say that we are no longer going to take part in this farce of "choice", that we demand the parties give us GOOD candidates. Further, it would also mean that WHICHEVER candidate Congress then picked for our President would have NO political mandate, since they had no one vote for them.
...it would lead to tremendous turmoil and this nation being stymied from doing anything for 4 years. However...it would also signal to the two parties that the American people won't take their crap anymore, and that if they don't give us something we want in 4 years, we may just do it ourselves, making our own party, fielding our own candidate, and then having a President we can be proud of.
It's the idealistic anarchist in me that's saying all this, but the truth is, it's really the only thing that hasn't been tried. The current two party system is both too strong and too polarizing, and it's going to start causing America some real problems.
...actually, you've seen the last 7 years. It already has.
I think you greatly failed to comprehend what I wrote. NOT voting doesn't fail to legitimize the election results; you still give approval to it through inaction UNTIL 'vote of no confidence' is added to the ballot.
And by voting, you give it even more legitimacy since you are taking part in the system. The difference is, if you vote, you're a sheep. If you refuse...then you're something else. If you're lazy, that's one thing, but if you refuse to vote on principle, that's something entirely different.
...but don't get me wrong, I still haven't said I won't vote. I'm just saying I'm both unsure of if I will and of which "lesser evil" I would vote for. Right now, McCain is the lesser evil to me, but by such a minuscule margin that they're both really equal. Until something happens that can show one of them as "not as evil" in my mind, then how am I supposed to vote?
You said you pick the lesser of the two evils. If they both really ARE equal evils to me,then tell me, Ico...please...
...which one should I vote for?
To be damned if I do or damned if I don't, which is better? Doing and being damned, or refusing and being damned? If I'm damned either way, I'd rather be suborn, if for no other reason to to tell myself I was.
I'm with JohanLarson above. But I don't drink, so...(then again, I'd rather stand by my own courage anyway...)
.
It's not fair to the opposition to just list your opinion without doing so! 
