And? IMO either I vote for a net-positive candidate on the ballot, I write someone in, or I leave it blank. Not making a choice is also a choice. Not supporting a corrupt duopoly is also a choice.

IMO it is your kind of thinking that has gotten us to the point that a huge portion of the elecorate was (and is!) willing to roll the dice on a dimwitted con man whose only skill is self-marketing and happened to pick the right parents.

Establishment Rs and Ds have been driving this country into the ground since Reagan. That was when the divergance between worker productivity and worker pay started, and the difference in money went to the 1%. The graph is crystal clear.

Since then both Rs and Ds have been screwing middle America. I'm very sure I voted for Clinton, but if I had then the attitude I have now, I'd have voted for Perot, even though there is virtually no chance he'd win.

There are two ways to change a system that is not working: violence and voting. The only way to change an elected official's actions is to make it clear you will vote for someone else.

Every candidate is viable if enough people believe.

Bernie Sanders in 2015 was completely "non-viable" looking at the standard metrics. He was polling at about 2% when he announced. It took the complete rigging of the primaries by Clinton and the DNC that she owned (they had a friggin' contract!) to beat him.

I think whether the con man or genocide Joe is worse is a matter of a few degrees. If you are more focused on foreign policy, Trump is (IMO) less horrendous; for domestic policy Biden is less horrendous. Both are a net-negative on my score sheet, so I can't vote for either one.

Finally, my jury is still out on term limits, but I'm all for ranked voting. I think that if you hold public office you and your semi-immediate family should be barred from holding investments (even in a blind trust). I think when you leave office you should be barred from working for a company that does business with the government.