Well, that's the central motivation behind my drive for ranked choice voting. It gets rid of evil-vs-lesser-evil, and doing it with ballot initiatives lets the people flex their muscle in one of the most powerful ways we can.
In the 2024 election, genocide was on both big tickets, so it gets really hair-splitty to call one "lesser evil". That is *exactly* what I was speaking to (sarcastically) when I was talking about the number of dead in Gaza. You *can't* rank genocides by quantity. Thus, on that one very hard-to-escape point, both tickets were equally evil.
And that's what we have to ask. At what point do we start accepting genocide as the cost of doing business? I hope we get to the point where the answer is "freaking NEVER." The question of the 2024 elections was "do I accept genocide to otherwise get the lesser evil?" I don't think people should have stayed home, but with everyone shouting at them that a third-party vote is a vote for MAGA, can you blame them for staying home?
For my part, I vote third party and call out "a vote for Stein was a vote for Trump" as the bullshit it is. But that's what people had to choose between if they just couldn't accept that they had to vote for the genocide either way. I'd rather have my vote tallied so the DNC can work the numbers and realize what supporting an actual atrocity cost them. Staying home is giving up.
Human suffering and the extermination of a people are not an acceptable price for my comfort.