But even if you do play the voting game it probably averages out that half time you're not getting who you vote for and the the other half of the time you're not getting what you voted for.
You have a few individuals and families that have a complete strangle hold via assets they're never taxed on and can borrow huge amounts of cash against. "We" simply can not compete on an even playing field.
Voting is a house always wins game.
I mean the system IS broken, but choosing not to participate doesn't help. If you do want to protest, vote blank. If you don't vote, you're participating in the idea that democracy doesn't work and should be replaced with a different system.
Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the least worst. The US-flavored democracy is broken but needs the right people to get voted in to change it.
If you factor in eligible non-voters, then "neither Democrat nor Republican" wins almost every election in the US. For example, Biden got 51.3% of the vote with 66.6% turnout, which is only 34% of eligible voters. Now ask yourself how many of those 34% were truly enthusiastic about Biden, and how many were just voting against Trump.
I think you're missing the point, which is that neither candidate was truly representative of the public interest. Just like neither Biden nor Trump is truly representative of the public interest. People hold their nose and vote for the lesser evil, but that's not what people want.
The OP said "it probably averages out that half time you're not getting who you vote for and the the other half of the time you're not getting what you voted for". In other words, even if your candidate wins, you lose.
I choose not to take part.
I'll do what I have to to not get terrorised by these people but otherwise I'm done. My family and I will explore our lives with the rest of humanity but no more am I taking serious the dictates of these power structures.
Amd democracy is not necessarily the best that is, like everything else, nothing more than propaganda.
There are some people who oppose corporate welfare for example to say one of the point you made
It’s not “I don’t get what I want so I don’t play” it’s “The outcome doesn’t change if I play or don’t, so I’ll just live my life and do something else”.
I can tell you exactly which party is going to win local elections near me, and in many cases which candidate because I know the demographics and general zeitgeist of the area. If I’m part of that zeitgeist, it doesn’t matter if I vote or note because I get the outcome I want either way. If I’m not, then it also doesn’t matter because no action by me is going to magically change anything. In national election, I have no interest in picking between thing 1 and thing 2, they’ll both fuck me over anyway, perhaps in different way.
Maybe if you live in a highly contested swing state or area it’s worth it to vote.
Black folks who now don't have to sit in the back of the bus and gay folks who are now allowed to be married would likely disagree with you.
So Truth isn't really a defense against a slander allegation; it's a refutation of that allegation. If the spoken words are true, they can't be defamatory, so they can't be slander.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation#:~:text=Truth%20i....
In the UK, it's usually a defense to say that the act was justified, even if it happened and you did it. I think it's usually a defense to claim that you had no choice.
I suppose my persnickety comment was to the effect that if the claim is true, then there was no slander; you aren't innocent or guilty, because the alleged act simply didn't happen.