Disliking politics and all the current political parties doesn't fit the technical definition of a centrist.
It's not that centrism can't exist, it's that it's commonly used as a thin pretense to cover actual partisan leanings, usually right-wing (by the general global metric, not just the US one).
Additionally, abstinence isn't commonly a good approach by which to assert a legitimately central stance. A lot of the time a legitimately central stance doesn't exist in a practical sense.
As stated by a commenter above "The middleground between racism and not racism is 50% racism".
I personally think the concept of "centrism" isn''t viable, not because nuance and context can't exist but because the "center" often isn't a useful target.
i think we are mostly in agreement, though I'll address a couple points of contention on my side.
I wasn't necessarily trying to equate racism with political centrism, i was using that comment as an example of how the idea of 'centrism' isn't always a viable or practical one.
it could just as easily have been "The middle ground between wet and dry is 50% wet".
But you can see that this reads " This would be the best option if it was possible, but it isn't, currently " ?
I agree with the sentiment, though i disagree that the optimal location is the "centre" , as i said before.
And it seems you agree given the follow up about the partially siding with trump being ridiculous.
As i was saying before i don't think centrism is a good label for what you are describing because it isn't really the centre of anything, it's some other thing on a whole spectrum of things.
I think that using the label "centrism" hurts any argument significantly more than it helps and coming up with some other , more accurate way of describing your position would greatly benefit any discussion around that area.
But labeling and categorising things is hard, especially in a concise and descriptive manner and as you say modern political conditioning tends towards thinking in rigid boxes.
As a complete aside (and a contrived , though i'd say accurate description):
In an effective two party system a vote that doesn't correspond with either of the two sides is effectively a vote for the ultimate victor.
This isn't a commentary on the politics of either side, i mean this as general statement on how voting would effectively work in that kind of system.
Assuming you agree with that point of view, how do you reconcile the potential ethical and moral outcomes of not voting at all ?
Genuine question, zero baiting.