voting third party in the USA is kinda like not voting at all
Not exactly. Even within the mind prison of liberal electoralism, voting for a third party in a FPTP system is different from not voting at all.
If the "lesser evil" becomes afraid that they are going to lose because of people voting for non-evil third parties, they will have an incentive to be less evil in order to convince those voters to come back.
On the other hand, if the "lesser evil" feels safe that people are going to vote for them as long as they're less evil than the other evil candidate there's really nothing holding them back from being 99.9% as evil as the greater evil. In fact, becoming almost as evil as the other guy becomes the rational strategy for appealing to centrist voters who could opt for the greater evil if the lesser evil is not seen as being evil enough.
This has the further effect of moving the Overton window to the right as you know have two very evil candidates taking up public space and attention, thereby normalising the greater evil access pushing public opinion towards more evil.
Politicians might all be evil off-putting losers but they're not idiots. They're rational actors seeking to maximise personal gains. By declaring that you will vote for somebody no matter what they do you're effectively telling them not to pay attention to you and to spend their efforts courting the right instead.
On the other hand by being willing to withhold your vote, thereby causing the "lesser evil" to lose, you're putting a price tag on your support, giving them an incentive to be less evil.
Of course this effect is greatest the less safe the seat in question is. If either evil candidate has a safe seat and is expected to win with a huge majority, voting for either evil, voting third party or not voting at all becomes pointless as public input is no longera meaningful part of the political process.
Not exactly. Even within the mind prison of liberal electoralism, voting for a third party in a FPTP system is different from not voting at all.
If the "lesser evil" becomes afraid that they are going to lose because of people voting for non-evil third parties, they will have an incentive to be less evil in order to convince those voters to come back.
On the other hand, if the "lesser evil" feels safe that people are going to vote for them as long as they're less evil than the other evil candidate there's really nothing holding them back from being 99.9% as evil as the greater evil. In fact, becoming almost as evil as the other guy becomes the rational strategy for appealing to centrist voters who could opt for the greater evil if the lesser evil is not seen as being evil enough.
This has the further effect of moving the Overton window to the right as you know have two very evil candidates taking up public space and attention, thereby normalising the greater evil access pushing public opinion towards more evil.
Politicians might all be evil off-putting losers but they're not idiots. They're rational actors seeking to maximise personal gains. By declaring that you will vote for somebody no matter what they do you're effectively telling them not to pay attention to you and to spend their efforts courting the right instead.
On the other hand by being willing to withhold your vote, thereby causing the "lesser evil" to lose, you're putting a price tag on your support, giving them an incentive to be less evil.
Of course this effect is greatest the less safe the seat in question is. If either evil candidate has a safe seat and is expected to win with a huge majority, voting for either evil, voting third party or not voting at all becomes pointless as public input is no longera meaningful part of the political process.