We stand on the precipice of what could be the most unenthusiastic voting season in recent American history. Not because there aren’t some trying to be as loud as possible for both leading party candidates, but because there’s a growing contingent of Americans who just feel thoroughly fed up with the whole shebang. In every election, the unenthused electorate is generally frowned upon for not showing more excitement towards the two established red and blue candidates. For years, everybody has heard and dismissed criticism from the skeptics decrying “more of the same,” but in 2024 we face perhaps the most egregious example of this predicament: former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. The former cares so little about our democratic institutions that he poses an existential threat to them, while it can be argued that the latter would never have made it through the primaries if not for being the vice president to the previously incumbent candidate. So yeah, you could say I’m unenthused about the options that have been presented to me. 

The root cause of this disenchantment comes down to our party system. In a country that has complained about polarization for so long, it’s genuinely shocking how interchangeable Republicans and Democrats are in some ways. Take war, for example. Republicans have long been dedicated to bringing global control and security through American hegemony overseas for decades under the neoconservative agenda. Looking at Iraq, Afghanistan or any one of the laundry list of CIA-backed coups around the world, our warmongering and controlling behavior around the globe is clear. 

There was a time when the Democratic party wasn’t interested in doing the same thing. Proxy wars, arms proliferation and profiteering used to just be the purview of the Bush dynasty. Nowadays, it’s downright un-American to not support endless proxy wars overseas that promote our political and financial interests the world over. 

Trump claims he’ll put an end to the war in Ukraine immediately after getting into office, which as a prevention of further senseless deaths would be a humanitarian success. But his plans — and concepts of such — for freezing the conflict, or at least as far as he’s revealed them, are markedly in favor of Russia’s side of the conflict without seeking a more equitable resolution. Even so, I don’t believe that Trump will act in any way that doesn’t directly support the interests of himself or those who fund his campaign. Besides, there is a difference between seeking a peaceful resolution in the region for the prevention of further deaths, and just flat-out backing Russia. Trump has threatened to bomb Russia before just to make a point — why would his tune change now except to capitalize on voters who are fed up with constant warmongering? 

On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats have made it clear that they intend to supposedly protect Ukraine through thick, thin and brutal counter-invasions, which have killed around 80 Russian civilians. While these numbers obviously pale in comparison to the suggested 1 million people on both sides that have perished, that’s no excuse to support a counter invasion that can and will lead to more innocent civilian deaths. 

The war in Gaza is, obviously, not great either. At best, we have strong language being levelled against Israel while we sell them more weapons throughout their reckless invasion, while at worst we have politicians financially benefiting from their support of the war in Gaza without a single reservation about Israel’s conduct, justified or not. But what should we expect from the system that’s supported the illegal use of white phosphorus munitions in Fallujah, just like what has taken place in Gaza? 

Even if both parties royally stink, there are still the dark horses and visionary candidates to look to for hope. And let me tell you, these candidates aren’t that. Yes, I’m obviously overjoyed that President Biden is out of the race. But his replacement, while campaigning on some genuinely encouraging policy plans, is simply not the candidate for radical change that people have clamored for. Aside from her flip-flopping on policy and stubborn commitment to not stepping on Israel’s toes, it seems like the biggest pet peeve surrounding Harris comes down to her rhetoric. In the words of comedian Tim Dillon, Kamala Harris talks about political policy like she hasn’t done the reading. In some ways, her rhetoric comes off as an odd mix between first-term versions of former President Barack Obama and Trump when they were the underdogs. 

But what’s truly so unappealing about Harris for many people is the fact that they weren’t able to pick or not pick her. She essentially sidestepped the nomination process by jumping into the race in Biden’s stead following his disastrous debate performance. But in doing so, she further prevented Democrats from making any sort of deliberation over who their candidate would be. Sure, you can pack the convention center with as many cheering audience members as you want — it doesn’t change the fact that not one of those people voted for her in a primary. Even if 100% of registered voters decided to vote for Harris, it still would’ve been nice to have actually chosen her to be the nominee in the first place, in the way that our democracy is intended to function.

And as for Trump, oh how far the geriatric old men have fallen and can’t get up. He’s reached the critical point of advanced age, clearly having declined mentally since his candidacy in 2016, preventing him from being the man his supporters think he is. Canceling town halls to dance to Andrea Bocelli for over 30 minutes, floundering in his first and only debate against Harris and ranting about having to pay his employees overtime at his own rally makes it clear that he doesn’t have the social power he used to — even his insults aren’t what they used to be. He’s gone from the terror of the 2016 Republican debate stage to just repeating lame racial commentary about Harris’ mixed heritage. The nickname “laughing Kamala” doesn’t have the bite he thinks it does, and it’s clear he’s lost his ability to even impress his own voter base with his out-of-pocket remarks. While before, you could argue that Trump’s unexpectedly cutting wit was what separated him from the decorum of other politicians, now he’s just become the racist relative at the family party that you need to warn your guests about. Regardless of whether he wins or loses, it’s only a matter of time before Trump is put out to pasture. He simply doesn’t have the charge or mental acuity he used to. If he was petty before, he’s just plain pathetic now.

We have two primary candidates in this election, and there’s a growing portion of people in the country who can’t stand either of them. While these uncommitted voters may be looked down upon, they certainly have their reasons to be cynical. They’re being told they must act a certain way to prevent the destruction of America and are assured that voting for one political side is universally the best course of action. And, when your third party options are spineless sellouts and the longshot of all longshots, wouldn’t you feel a little disenchanted? 

Both sides of this race represent more war, more hollow rhetoric, more degradation of our democracy and, above all, more of the same. Regardless of this, there is really no reason not to vote. Even if you’d like to make a stance against one or both of the candidates by remaining undecided, choosing local representatives, as well as voting on ballot initiatives and amendments, are ample reasons to make your voice heard at the ballot office. Despite what you may think, not participating in democracy contributes to authoritarianism just as much as those voting for authoritarians does. Make your voice heard, and let them know you’re unhappy. Screw the candidates — don’t screw yourself.