I’m starting to think that we need a realignment of how we view the concept of “our vote”. It’s something that is viewed with a sort of sacred reference, and understandably so. Being able to vote for your leaders is a Big Deal, and it’s something we should fight vehemently to protect. But at the same time, we should stop viewing it as a deep moral choice, and more as a purely practical one. Many of the people who refuse to vote for Hillary feel that way because they think that doing so will be a validation, even a celebration, of the things they strongly disapprove of (her cozy relationship with the Money class that nearly destroyed our economy, the dirty tactics of the DNC, her policies and actions as Secretary of State, whatever).

But that’s not what it is. It’s not a moral choice, it’s purely a practical one. As you point out in this essay, Hillary may not be the candidate we want, but she’s a hell of a lot better than the alternative. Of course, the standard criticism of this is to say, “I’m tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.” And I can understand that. But the truth is, many choices we make in life involve selecting from ‘the lesser of two evils”, and we accept that, even if we don’t like it. So why should this be any different?

I would love nothing more than to have a candidate I can be proud and excited to vote for. But that’s just not what we have right now. So I’ll accept that democracy is messy, and make the practical choice, while looking for opportunities to make for better choices the next time around.