I will say with a straight face that having one choice for dear leader is tyranny, but having two is better than one.

> any freedom at all

It's not all-or-nothing. I'd rather have a choice instead of none.

>It's not all-or-nothing. I'd rather have a choice instead of none.

I used to work adjacent to car financing. One of the "tricks" used in car negotiating is the "fake choice": "oh, you want to pay less for the car? Well. I can give you X OR Y for FREE!". Now you spend time thinking if you want X or Y, forgetting thay they are worth $200, and what you really want is $1000 less on the car.

Be careful with the "choice" you think you are making

Do you want to eat a plate of worms or do you want to eat a plate of spiders?

Do you want to die from hanging, lethal injection, firing squad, electrocution?

Lethal injection if done right, otherwise firing squad. What are you trying to demonstrate? Some choice is still better than no choice.

I was trying to demonstrate that choice < freedom

Spiders, probably. What kind of worms?

Mealworms, it’s right there in the name

> Having only two choices isn't notably better, especially if both options are equally bad.

This is getting pointlessly non-specific. The world rarely has two equally bad choices and that description absolutely does not apply to american elections.

If I want pasta, and I can chose from 10k options, but none of which are pasta, is it really any different than if I had one option?

If the people can get rid of a leader, they don't live under totalitarianism. Even though another leader will appear quite soon, the important thing is to be able to cause the incumbent leader anxiety and confusion at election time, to prevent excessive leadership.