What does it say about a society, and the state, if the citizens truly believe there isn't a single person to vote for?

Are we talking about Ron Paul?

@johnpowell No, I refer to my country, Serbia. But it doesn’t really matter who exactly is it.

I would laugh, except what you describe is real, and many lives stand to be affected.
So here is the thing, by voting the way they did, it shows the voters want better quality candidates.
Just because someone is a candidate does not mean they are the best your country has. It just means the way the system is set up, creeps got themselves lined up for it.
By showing their distrust, and voting how they did, the people have made it clear they are not fooled, and want better suited choices.
I am convinced they have done the right thing.
I hope it works toward a better future for you.

It says the society has major issues, and the politics are thoroughly corrupt. Unfortunately, it’s also very common.

It may also reflect largely on the election system and how corrupt that is, which is why I usually mention that the US voting system is crap and could be greatly improved by allowing preferences and multiple votes, instead of giving only one vote to however many candidates, or actually reducing the field to only two big-party candidates, when the parties are so massively dysfunctional and corporate-owned, as is the news media.

And no, you are not taking it too seriously at all. It is a really, really serious issue!

Speaking for the USA (I don’t know what your country is, but here the problem is not just corruption in politics but a cultural problem): We lack leadership. We lack strong healthy masculine role models. We have far too few healthy emotionally intelligent adult males. We have far too many unhealthy and abusive examples of masculinity and manboys in power. We lack clarity. We lack integrity. We lack honesty. We lack maturity. We lack courage.

There are people who actually still support Donald Trump as president, and don’t see him as dysfunctional. I would much prefer a non-existent joke candidate, and I feel that when the candidates are as bad as they were (neither had even a 50% approval rating on election day, for the first time in US history), we should elect neither.

“How exactly am I, or society at large, supposed to do in a situation I described above?”

- You’re supposed to participate in society in ways that cause the situation to change. You’re supposed to do it legally and non-violently, though for some level of corruption, escalating insistence, disobedience, force and even violence may be needed. Though violence should be the last resort, and can go south or be turned to many negative ends.

“What does this say about the country, and how exactly are we all supposed to deal with this?”

- I don’t know what country you’re talking about so I only know what you wrote. Sounds like you have a thick corruption problem.

There are several ways to bring about revolution. The main one that everyone can do is through conversations. Talk about the situation. Don’t just repeat old conversations, and certainly do not avoid speaking the truth no matter how confrontational. Say new things. When a society’s conversations change and become more honest and on-point, the thinking changes and that’s what transforms a situation.

Specific conversations can also be had with people in positions to change policies. Read Speak Peace In A World Of Conflict for techniques to have effective conversations with real communication that make change possible.

The other thing is to find actual adult people with integrity and goodwill, and get them involved in politics, at all levels of government. Stop supporting establishment politicians and only vote and support actual representatives of the people for change. And talk about that with everyone.

I think there is a great disconnect between political elites and the citizenry. In my country (Australia), it appears that most politicians have gone into that role not because they want to make our country better, but as a career move. In this country, many of our politicians have a law degree and I don’t feel confident many have any ‘real life’ experience. They really don’t understand how it feels to be in a single-income family, with a limited education, and a low paid job.

So I think when members of the general electorate look at the candidates on offer, and especially when they are members of large parties to whom the voter feels no or only a little connection, they can feel cynical about the candidate’s promises or commitment to bring about necessary change.

I know I have looked at the politicians on offer in elections and thought “I don’t want to vote for any of these fools”. I don’t trust them. There is little difference between our major parties and I look at the money those people are paid and the perks they receive and I have no faith in them or their motivations. They’re so busy trying to keep their job as politicians, they refuse to make the change that needs to be made. I think people are both apathetic about our political systems and disgusted with politicians who just want to milk the system for all they can get out of it.

And many of the independents are right-wing nut-jobs. There are a handful of politicians here that I believe have strong moral fibre and the intellect to be critical and the balls to stand up for what they believe in.

The Australian Prime Minister is paid more than the US president.

I fear we are probably approaching the end game long predicted regarding the viability of capitalism. The failure of the left to educate what should be its natural constituency means that we’re in for some brutal reckoning. That old jingle about the choice being socialism or barbarism becomes less theoretical a notion as the clock ticks. The short story is that there is no longer any chance for the society to evolve in an equitable direction under the current rules. The ever growing dissatisfaction of the masses, the bulk of whom are increasingly shunted toward the “loser pile” simply means future aberrations beyond Trump, and far more severe. As my friend says “Trump may not have the sense to qualify as a fascist, but there’s no disputing that he is both surrounded and advised by them.” The result is that people formerly reluctant to air odious and bizarre views in public, now glory in the glow of the Donald. Things look grim.

^ Well, that doesn’t sound too gleeful.

Yeah, and in the 60’s people wandered around with signs which said, the end is near.
Right.

That right. And the apocalypse folks have been at it for as long as there have been people. But here’s the difference between then and now. THEN there was a growing economy with a surplus of well paying jobs. The rich got richer but there was enough left for the standard of living of those producing the wealth to rise as well. Households, even middle class households could survive and even prosper on the income of a single individual. Pensions were very much the rule and not the exception. Virtually free employer financed healthcare was the norm, and the great scourge of elderly destitution had been virtually eliminated through Social Security. And here is the REAL biggie. Corporate farming was just gearing up, but it was possible to earn a decent living and lead a normal existence in rural America. Kids with dreams left for the cities as they always have, but staying behind was not the equivalent of wasting away along with your birthplace.

It’s difficult. People tend to think government can solve all their problems and they vote for the person that promises the most. But government doesn’t solve their problem it only makes it worse. The worse it gets the more government they want to solve it until finally they lose confidence that any government official can fix it. The bigger the government gets the worse things get until the people reach out for anyone that seems different, no matter how obscure. Unfortunately even then they still hold on to this notion that government can fix it. More government won’t fix it because government is the problem. “Less is more.” (no idea who said that). Government stands on the neck of innovation and prosperity, holding it down and draining the life out of its people. Look for candidates that promise less not more and we may be able to recover. Real solutions are not government solutions. Anything the government can give you the government can take away, and it will.

People may indeed hope that their government might alleviate their problems, and the truth is they have a right to expect that their government WILL address those issues affecting the society as a whole. But when our beloved gipper coined the immortal “government IS the problem” slogan, careful attention should be paid to the remedy he chose in rectifying the problem of “big gubamint”. The solution- gut social programs such as housing subsidies and double the budget for military spending. And the result—the sudden and alarming appearance of armies of homeless people on the nation’s streets accompanied with the simultaneous explosion of the deficit.

Invariably, those complaints about big, clumsy, intrusive inefficient (etc) government are most stridently proffered by those who just happen to own the government. We are told that “our” government can’t afford meals on wheels, while a 4 billion dollar aircraft carrier slides out of the docks eager to receive its upcoming retinue of f-35s to adorn its flight deck at 1 billion dollars a pop. The argument that the 12 existing carrier groups are not sufficient to defend the nation distinguished for its homeless “villages”, decaying bridges, backbreaking drug/health insurance scams, etc.-that argument deserves closer scrutiny. I’m tired of people with with plenty telling me what “our government can’t afford” as right in front of us, other relatively puny governments manage to somehow come up with the goods.

Par for the course. No one you could vote for could (within reason) have all the qualities and wants you do, so you can only vote for the person who most closely represents what you want.