A Facebook friend offers this argument in favor of his decision not to vote for Hillary Clinton:
It is an interesting argument, one I made as recently as 2000 or so, but one that fails a basic test. Voting is not an act of principle, but a pragmatic act that is part of a larger array of strategic actions we should be taking to push our agenda.
I understand the urge to toss Hillary Clinton under the bus. I am no fan — she has been too close to corporate interests and is far too hawkish on foreign policy. But it is dangerous to assume that tossing her under the electoral bus will not have consequences. Clinton and Donald Trump are not the same. On several key issues — the court, immigration, health care — a Trump presidency would be a disaster. Trump’s rhetoric has been racist, misogynist and protofascist, and his electoral success in the primaries has given an imprimatur to the racists and misogynists out there. I could go on.
So, how does the notion of “principles” factor in? I could argue that my principles demand that I vote for Clinton as the only person who reasonably can be expected to beat Trump and keep him away from the nuclear codes and the bully pulpit of the presidency. Or I could argue that Clinton’s long-standing pro-corporate biases disqualify her from receiving my vote, and that I had no principled choice but to vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party. In this case, the argument is that we must use our ballot to send a signal to whoever it is that wins the White House that we on the left can not be taken lightly.
Both are legitimate and principled arguments that are consistent with the beliefs of lefties like me. But they are in conflict with each other and, in the end, we have to reconcile the conflict. The reality is that Stein is not going to win the presidency. A protest vote may send a message, but it also deprives the more liberal candidate of a liberal/lefty vote. It is not a vote for Trump, but it ultimately enhances the value of the individual Trump vote by removing a counterweight to that vote. If enough liberals and lefties vote for Stein, Trump could win. (The same is true in the other direction; if enough conservative voters move to Gary Johnson, for instance, it would doom Trump.)
It is a question of strategy, then, and not one of principle. Those of us suspicious of Clinton have to ask ourselves which principle will serve us best long-term — one in which we send a message but potentially give the White House to a narcissistic opportunist with proto-fascist tendencies, or one in which we bite our lip and back a badly flawed candidate understanding that we are best served by having a Democrat choose the next few Supreme Court candidates and prevent the rollback of the gains made over the last eight years.
Voting is a strategic act, as I said, and it has to be part of a broader political strategy. In my case, I’m voting for Clinton in November, not so much as a lesser of two evils, but as a way of making the best of a bad situation. And after she is elected, I plan to be one of her biggest critics, doing what I can to continue pushing her to the left.
Send me an e-mail.
Hank Kalet 
I was (am) for Bernie, I voted for Bernie in the primary. Though he didn't win, thank goodness he is still a senator and still has some philosophical clout. Hillary is the much, much less evil: she will not stack the supreme court with right wing nudniks, she is not a climate change denier, she is pro gay and LBGTQ rights, she is pro choice, she is for reasonable gun control and she's not some kind of religious freak or creationist. I'm voting for Hillary because the positives outweigh the negatives. Hell, Bernie said he will be voting for Hillary.
So you think voting should be about strategy, not principles? Fine. But you think anyone who refuses to vote for Clinton is some kind of airhead that is out of touch with reality? That's mighty condescending, at best.Maybe my strategy is to deal a blow to the Democratic Party that will induce them to reevaluate the practice of offering candidates like Clinton. My strategy could be to steadfastly adhere to my principles until enough people join me to make a difference. You think it will be ineffective? That's just your opinion.What serves us best in the long term? I'll decide for myself, strategically. I'm patient. In my strategy, I will not throw my vote away.Principles and strategy go hand in hand.And Guiseppe, I don't care who Bernie Sanders is voting for. That's his business. He was a candidate, and now he is not.
I never called anyone an airhead or said anyone was out of touch with reality. I outlined my strategy and why I thought it preferable — my opinion, as you said. I understand the desire to use the ballot to upend the apple cart, as well; I just don't think it will accomplish what you think it will and that's fine. Not sure what made you so defensive.I agree we need more than two parties, but for us to have them and for them to be more than protest parties. There needs to be an organization that run deeper than a name at the top of a ticket. Just voting for Jill Stein — or Nader, as I did in 1996 and 2000 — doesn't address the organizational issue. Even the most successful third party candidates of recent memory — Ross Perot and George Wallace — were nothing more than spoilers and left no functioning organization in their wake. Organization probably needs to happen at the local level, with local structures and candidates building connections and establishing track records and expanding these to state-level structures and candidates and the House and Senate and so on.I do have a question: Are you planning to do more than stand on your principles and wait for the world to catch up, or are you engaging in the hard work of creating a sustainable alternative?