You must log in or # to comment.
deleted by creator
That’s not a counterpoint, that’s just pointing out that both aren’t good signals. The main difference is that not voting or voting third party makes it more likely that the guy you yourself admit you’re more scared of more likely to win.
That’s not how democracy works, like at all
Democracy is about compromise. By definition. Not about demanding exactly what you want and sabotaging the system if you don’t get it. That’s the opposite of democracy.
What if I don’t want to compromise with fascists?
Then you get full fascism
When 40% of the voting population wants fascism those are your options.
If 40% of the voting population wants fascism your democracy is fucked and its time to re-open gulags.
“Don’t like fascism? Lock up your political enemies. Problem solved.”
The answer isn’t even voting. Voting is actually important in this scenario because, yes, you are actually voting to keep fascists from the door.
The actual answer isn’t electoralism at all—even if it’s important to avert the worst case scenario.
The answer is withholding what’s most valuable to them: your labor. General strike with a clearly defined goal and a pissed off populace is literally the most powerful tool we can harness.
Liberals will get people killed before you could organize a general strike. Quit being naive.
lol love it. Every single time without fail, people will find an excuse for why iT WoULd jUsT nEVeR wOrK HErE!
Although I will admit I haven’t heard this one before. Kudos for being original I guess?
And they won’t when you try to open gulags? Lmao what is your actual plan here? Or are you just a defeatist
And now 40% of the population + you wants fascism
Just with different people in charge
Fascism isn’t the opposite of voting. Words have meaning. Open an history book once in a while.
I was referring to the gulags comment.
Ah yes, the horseshoe theory. Hitler came in power because liberals sided with him instead of the communists. Exactly like the current American democratic party would rather side with fascists than mere socialism. They proved it time and time again. Libs and fascists are too face of the same coin lol
Horseshoe theory is more like pointing out the similarities between Hitler and Stalin.
deleted by creator
You know I kind of question that. I think democracy is more about rich people controlling the mechanisms through which everyone votes in order to sort of fool the masses into believing that whatever the oligarchs decide they want, is what they must’ve wanted, while simultaneously also being a good way for the rich to kind of gauge public interests through a periodic census and more easily manipulate them.
No, but I kid. Mostly. I think, democracy, more, in it’s pure forms, is less maybe about compromise, and more about a kind of assumption that the majority of people are reasonable, and can be reasoned with, which I think is kind of a foundational assumption you need to make if you want any non-authoritarian form of society. Which isn’t to really say that democracy can’t be authoritarian, or employ authoritarian methods, because it can.
Most people don’t believe we should get rid of all guns, or that we should be able to freely own machine guns, or even lots of regular guns. A functioning democracy would end up having some level of background checks, and mental health checks, and general procedures that you would have to go through (probably involving hands-on training classes and certifications), in order to own a gun. If you poll people, with a good poll, rather than a stupid binary dynamic single choice poll, you’ll find that’s what most people want. From what I’ve seen, the same is true for abortion, and I haven’t seen the public sentiment on drugs, but I’d imagine most people probably would like most hard drugs to remain more illegal, or harder to access, than most “soft drugs”. You can find this across most different things you’d poll people on. Healthcare, other forms of public infrastructure, including civic infrastructure, military funding, space research, every aspect of government.
This isn’t to necessarily say that most people are moderates, but I think a very underrated aspect of democracy is the fact that people can choose not to vote if they feel like they’re not informed enough on a concept, which will naturally select, if done correctly, for people who are more knowledgeable on a subject. Even the general public is capable of giving you a somewhat nuanced answer on many different political topics, that kind of breaks through two-party dynamics, and might even break through what are thought to be general consistent ideological positions.
None of this is to say that democracy isn’t also about some level of compromise, but I think it’s also up to the reasonable participants of a democracy to decide their level of compromise, what they’re willing to accept and what they’re not okay with. I think, you know, if your democracy was more on the side of my initial, joking answer, than on the side of all of what I’ve laid out, it would be kind of a shame were the whole system NOT sabotaged and taken down. In my view, at least. And, you know, providing something worse didn’t sprout up in it’s place.
I think it’s pretty much a given that something worse would sprout up in its place.
But I do agree that an educated voting base is critical to functioning democracy. That’s why I think the long term solution to our current fascism problem is education, a front we’re failing miserably on
Western democracy originated in ancient Greece. This political system granted democratic citizenship to free men, while excluding slaves, foreigners and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, this was what democracy meant. An elite class of free men made all the decisions for everyone. Before Athens adopted democracy, aristocrats ruled society, so “rule by the people”, or the idea of a government controlled (in theory) by all its (free) male citizens instead of a few wealthy families seemed like a good deal. But really it was just a new iteration of Aristocracy rule rather than the revolution it’s painted as. The rich still rule society by feeding voters carefully constructed propaganda and keeping everyone poor, overworked and desperate to be granted basic needs by the state.
In democracies today, only legal citizens of a country are granted democracy. In a lot of countries, people who have been convicted of a “crime” are denied the right to vote, regardless of how long ago they served their sentence. In the US, this is used to deny voting rights to minority groups, who make up a large proportion of the prison population.
In some societies only a small minority group are allowed to participate in the democracy. In Apartheid South Africa, the minority group (European settlers) granted themselves democracy and excluded the native majority, using democracy to deprive the native population of the rights granted to European settlers. Anarchy, of course, is an absence of government; of rulers. Democracy aims for the individual to be governed, ruled, controlled by others.
Our rulers use democracy to separate us into in-groups and out-groups, pitting the majority group against the minority groups and giving everyone a false sense of control. We’re made to believe we have a say in how our lives are run because we get to participate in glorious democracy. Of course, all of us outside the ruling class continue to be exploited, living in perpetual servitude, and the only people who really benefit from democracy are the ruling class who use it to keep us alienated and distracted so we don’t rise up and kill them all for the debilitating misery they create.
Democracy grants authority to favored groups to oppress minority groups. Democracy ignores the autonomy of the individual in favor of the collective will of the dominant group. Democracy exists to enable rulers to uphold brutal power hierarchies. It’s really the full embodiment of authority; used to maintain the tyrannical capitalist-statist status quo all over the world today.
Democracy bad?
Now there’s a hot take
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, however you try to window-dress it. In practice, all forms of democracy have been used by a majority group to control or otherwise dictate to a minority group. All forms of democracy have been used to smother autonomy, to stifle self-determination, and to absolve rulers of responsibility for their actions. How can a ruler be responsible for their atrocities when “the people” elected them and empowered them to commit those atrocities?
Instead of a large group laboring to make democracy work so they can agree on a course of action, it would be far more productive for smaller groups made up of people with shared interests to splinter off and co-operate to follow their own plans that require no compromise because their interests are already aligned.
Counter-counter-point : democracy, as a system of government, is pointless because whether you vote, you don’t vote, you protest vote, you vote tactically or you just set your ballot paper on fire it’s not going to make a difference – you still get shafted by corrupt fuckers.
“Voting is pointless because they’re all corrupt fuckers” sure, tell that to the gay people who now have rights because of Democrats, or the trans people who do not have rights because of Republicans. Dumbass
This is where all the “Genocide Joe” folks’ arguments fall apart completely. It shows how incredibly misguided they are. There is literally no scenario where Trump is better than Biden.
Should I also tell that to all the people who voted Democrat and lost their right to abortion because every Democrat failed to pass a Federal abortion law in forty years because it didn’t serve their own interests to do so?
Should I also tell that to all the people who voted Democrat and might lose their right to same-sex marriage because every Democrat as so far failed to pass a federal same-sex marriage law because it didn’t serve their own interests to do so?
Do you want me to carry on about how corrupt the Democrats are? About how – when it comes down to it – they failed the people just as badly as the Republicans have?
Besides, I live in the UK and frankly don’t give a shit about the clusterfuck that the American clownshow of politics is. We have our own problems.
Besides, I live in the UK and frankly don’t give a shit about the clusterfuck that the American clownshow of politics is.
Then why in the flying fuck are you out here giving opinions on something you don’t know about and don’t care about?
Hold on – you think we don’t vote in the UK? We don’t have democracy in the UK?
Where does the original image mention the USA?
Where do I mention the USA – aside from this post where do I mention the USA?
Every time I have referred to voting I have been talking about elections in the UK.
Fucks’ sake – the entire world doesn’t revolve around your pitiful excuse for a democracy. And given what I’ve read here, most of your country doesn’t give a shit about your pitiful excuse for democracy.
the entire world doesn’t revolve around your pitiful excuse for a democracy
No, but this post does.
Where does it say that, exactly?
Point out for me where this image mentions America, American democracy, the American election or anything else about your country?
I’ll wait.
I agree with you in boiling it down to: Democrats have failed the people because they haven’t done enough good things, while Republicans have failed the people by actively doing terrible things.
So my conclusion is that yes, both parties have done terrible things, and I agree that Democrats haven’t gone far enough on most issues I care about, but the GOP is actively going against the things I care about.
It’s an easy decision at the ballot box, and it is an easy decision for me to do more than simply vote. Voting is the lowest bar for participation in a democracy.
deleted by creator
yes we made a bunch of noise about the failures of the democrats in an effort to pressure them to fucking do something. whether you think we are stupid for refusing to vote or not, you can’t deny how much discourse there is and how much engagement has occurred.
Refusing to vote in the general election is actually beyond stupid. None of your arguments will have any merit, and when Trump wins, you can buy some golden shoes to commemorate sticking it to the DNC.
Voting for someone that does not represent you because you are more scared of the other guy is indistinguishable, as a signal, from someone that fully supports them. By voting against your own interests you are actively undermining the democratic process.
See that’s where your argument makes no sense. Unless you want Trump to win, not voting is in effect “against your own interests”. Undermining the democratic process is what Trump WILL DO if he is elected.
This is the reality of our election process, like it or not.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Democracy requires participation to be legitimized by the people.
But sure, don’t vote and have the fascists take away those annoying voting rights. Like an idiot.
Stop thinking and start voting!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
How?
Who do you think is going to read your blank ballot?
My constituency has 250,000+ people in it.
Do you REALLY think that someone is going to sift through over two hundred and fifty THOUSAND ballots, find one that has “abstain” on it and go “oh – we must find this person and find out why they are upset with the process”?
Also – not to put too fine a point on it – voting is supposed to be anonymous. If I write “abstain” on my ballot and they track me down, isn’t that FAR more worrying?
When my mum got called for election-office duty, she found some ballots with crap in it.
Maybe rephrase your other comment then.
Vote early and vote often!
Think AND vote
Putin really love the way you think! <3
yeah, didn’t work in brazil, we just opened up for the right to elect their dumbass just before the pandemic started, it was grim, please do vote for the lesser evil.
Yeah, vote if you want, but please do more than that.
My voting strategy is super easy. You don’t need to keep up with politics or policy. Just see who the KKK is voting for and then vote for the other guy.
You can hate all the candidates and still vote for the less shitty one.
You can hate the concept of government in it’s entirety and still vote. Even Lysander Spooner, a total anarchist, said as much in his writings. He said government is completely illegitimate, but there’s nothing wrong with voting when you are forced into the system, and doing so does not imply your consent to the system. It’s like a torturer asking you how you’d prefer to be tortured. It’s OK to have an opinion. Over here in the USA, I’d rather suffer Sleepy Genocidal Joe than that fucking orange monster. Since we don’t have ranked choice voting, I have to pick one or else I don’t get any say at all, and that’s exactly how the powers-that-be want it.
Yep. Do you want a festering carbuncle on your ass or do you want AIDS, Ebola, leprosy and testicle cancer combined? Shitty choice but an easy one nonetheless.
If the primaries aren’t complete can’t you vote for another option?
Maybe you can. I can’t.
I cannot because I’m (fortunately) not a US citizen. If you are and you don’t vote, it’s a vote for Trump. If you want Trump to win because you think things will somehow get better after he brings down the system, you’re delusional.
It’s not specific to the US. It’s a matter of having a tiny bit of political culture. Liberals and fascists needs each other. The first needs the last as a scapegoat and the later feeds off poverty and frustration created by neoliberal corporatism. So no I won’t be blackmailed into voting for white-wingers. People voting for fascists are the only responsible for fascism.
A-fucking-men
You can dislike excrement and cyanide and still eat shit.
Got it, should riot instead.
You should.
You won’t though.
A riot on your own is just a tantrum. There’s no point of you’re not organised.
Well that’s the left fucked then.
I’m convinced that the CIA is somehow causing the American left to be unable to organize, because with organization comes power, and the left having power would mean a shift away from corporate rule.
Closest they seemed to get was the Black Panthers. So it was the FBI rather than the CIA that busted that in.
The CIA killed socialist politician in my country.
And I’m not some banana south-american dictature, I’m in western europe.
Like by infiltrating, arresting, and executing them? It’s the FBI. You know about COINTELPRO, right? There are tons of FBI documents talking about how they did exactly that. Or like… The drug war?
This shit is recent and still going on. I have a friend who’s an organizer. The FBI comes and knocks on his door every April just to tell him they’re watching him. This happens to every visible organizer in the Seattle area. I mean, fucking Durkan and Robert Child’s.
The US apparatus of state violence primarily targets the left. We live under a continuous counterinsurgency program and it’s mostly targeted and keeping the left from organizing. Go read Life During Wartime and watch Trouble episode 6.
There’s huge and well documented paper trail. The CIA prevents democracy aborad, the FBI prevents it at home.
Who’s the one that tried to get MLK Jr. to off himself due to him getting a bit too socialist? FBI? Whoever it was was probably also involved in his shooting.
That would be the FBI.
Good thing May is coming ;)
ITT: people shouting “nuh uh” at the post.
I’m fairly convinced that Lemmy has been compromised with an inordinate amount of Russian propaganda relay bots.
If you’re really that convinced that everyone who doesnt like genocide joe is a russian bot, then you’re far too immature to be using any website other than reddit.
You call them immature in the same sentence as literally name calling like a school bully.
I mean if the man supports genocide it’s fair to call him that.
Liberals are fine with warcrime when their side is doing it. Meanwhile, under their Biden, American soldiers are setting themselves afire.
If they get trump they will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Lemmy’s so small I have my doubts it’s that widespread. We have a good amount of extreme left true believers here.
Yup. Anyone who thinks differently than you do is a bot and/or explicitly supportive if Russia.
Sounds like something a bot would say >_>
____________ /____________\ / / _\__/_ \ \ || // \\// \\ || || \\_//\\_//.|| |_\__/_<>_\__/_| / \ / || || \ /// \\\ //| |\\ / \\ Hootbot // \ |U'U|'---____---'|U'U| |____________________| \ / | | | | m1a ____| |____ |\__/| |\__/| | / \ | | / TOMY \ | |/________________\| |__________________|
I mean, why wouldn’t it be? There is nothing stopping bad faith actors from participating. The only reason they wouldn’t is if there was little value in doing so.
What about the people like me who are just tired of liberal astroturfing? One can hate putin and that lesser-evil bullcrap you know
If all else fails, blame Russia lol
Did hexbear and Lemmygrad not tip you off? Except they’re not just bots, there are a lot of real people at it too.
Gonna be like this every election year from here on out.
Yeah, anyone who doesn’t agree with me is a Russian bot.
Because real, reasonable people can’t disagree with this? Many people would say that this doesn’t go far enough as it doesn’t condemn third party voters for just “throwing their vote away.”
Imagine thinking that the only people who hold a position you don’t like are Russian bots and not real people who actually believe shit.
Agreed, that’s why the strategy of voting uncommitted and/or third party is superior.
Except it’s a primary where he’s running against himself basically.
That’s the point. It’s a primary, it’s not the general election. They’re showing up and saying “we’re your voters and you know what our message is.”
Oh I’m 100% behind handing in a blank or Mickey Mouse or something in the primary. What’s upsetting is the people who swear up and down they’re going to do it in the general.
Doesn’t help that the US uses first past the post voting instead of ranked choice. You usually have to pick who you hate least, rather than who you like most.
It does not in the slightest help, no. But it is worth noting that even here you can see differences in the parties - one of them keeps trying to strip voting rights from people, put minimal polling places into high density areas, etc.
I tell our kids to turn in an empty ballot if they don’t want to vote. To at least do that is a minimum.
Counts the same as not voting.
Yeah, that’ll show em.
A little different actually
Not voting at all can mean anything. You like them all, you hate them all, you couldn’t care, etc.
Sending in a blank but signed vote means you cared enough to show up and that you didn’t pick anyone. Those ballots are counted. Over time, if enough of them start to pile up, the existing parties might change things up to cash in on the pile of votes sitting around. New parties may also form if there’s a clearly defined group that isn’t being represented.
I’m not pushing for doing this in any particular election. We have users from all over the world here, voting in many different jurisdictions of elections. A blank vote can be an effective strategy in some situations
In the US it’s just a non-vote. No one counts non-votes. Perhaps you live in a country where they do, but not if you’re an American.
I’m in Canada, and I think the term used here is ‘rejected ballots’ or ‘declined ballots’
Some links:
- https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/ontario-votes-2022-declined-ballots-rise-1.6466308
- https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90565&lang=e
The first article is specifically the effect I described, where people report the number of declined ballots, interview people who chose to do that, and talk about why it might be happening. That has an impact, but the magnitude depends on how prolific it is.
Second link quoted:
Ballots must be rejected if they were not supplied by an election officer, were improperly marked (including those voided by the elector), were cast for a person other than a candidate, or if there is any writing or mark by which the elector could be identified.
After the count, the election officer fills out a statement of the vote, recording the number of votes in favour of each candidate and the number of rejected ballots. In this statement, the election officer has to account for all ballots received at that poll.
I’m not as familiar with the US. My point was a blank ballot can have a different outcome from not showing up, and it can be a valid strategy depending on where you are in the world.
You are talking out of your ass. They know who voted, what party they are affiliated with. They don’t know who voted for who.
You’ll have an original thought some day. Not today of course. But some day.
If you can, please go vote. You give the vote up to the person you like the least if you don’t show up. I know this election sucks and the candidates aren’t the best. But is there someone you absolutely don’t want in office no matter what? I have one in mind and you better believe I’m showing up to vote for the only guy who can have a chance to keep him away. These other third party guys have no chance, like always. If you don’t show up to vote or vote third party as a throwaway, then don’t complain for the next four years.
These other third party guys have no chance, like always.
Also they aren’t serious candidates. You can tell because they just crawl out of the woodwork for presidential elections and cause problems. They don’t run for any offices further down the hierarchy and demonstrate that they have good ideas and build up public trust enough to merit their becoming president. They just go on vanity tours and fuck around the serious candidates who are willing to put in the work.
Honestly sometimes I think every country should have its own Sinn Féin of sorts. Just a party that never takes its seats. Yeah, try calling it the “same thing” when you can’t pass any legislation or form coalitions or get anything done because a third of the seats in the national legislature are literally left empty on purpose. Don’t like it? Well, it’s your problem that your party is literally less electable than No Representation!
In the US that would almost literally be voting in Republicans. They want the system to crawl to a halt, and critical functions are legislated to frequently sunset so they can hold the system hostage on a regular basis.
This is very superficial.
It’s how the system works with First Past the Post voting. It doesn’t support more than 2 viable candidates. We need to reform our election system.
Well, it’s a short comment on a social media platform, what do you expect. At least it’s less superficial than “This is very superficial.”
I should’ve gone into detail, but I’m just not in the mood to argue sometimes. I’ll get back to you if I do.
Well, good news, US legislature managed to dismantle itself with all the “checks and balances” and
liberum vetofilibuster. Now it’s just a circus to play for the gullible to legitimize this oligarchic empire. It is no representation, one way or another and somebody should openly state it. The best the progressive caucus could do now is to walk out.Yeah, try calling it the “same thing” when you can’t pass any legislation or form coalitions
Isn’t that the Republican strategy?
That’s the Republican strategy when they’re in the minority and the legislation in question is stuff that actually helps people. Real POSIWID hours
That’s a pretty brilliant strategy probably. I’ll run as an empty seat guy.
CGP Grey’s Rules for Rulers spells out power structures in authoritarian and democratic countries really well.
If you vote, you are saying “I can support you, or I can support the other guy, but I will support someone” whereas not voting tells politicians you are politically useless, so they won’t pay any attention to your needs.
It’s a cynical way of looking at it, but if the no. 1 imperative for a politician is reelection, spending time doing things that will get you more votes is better than wasting time pleasing people who probably won’t vote anyway.
If somebody tells you not to vote, they know who you would have voted for and rather you didn’t.
deleted by creator
Ah yes, Joe Biden committing Genocide, the right-wing talking point.
It is a right-wing talking point. It’s meant to sow division among Biden voters so that it becomes more likely Trump will win.
It’s chess not checkers.
The Democrats are starting to change their stance on the Genocide solely because they are seeing that voters are starting to walk away.
You are the person enabling the Genocide in Gaza with your rhetoric that Democrats can continue it and not lose voters.
Right? I love how mad centrists democrats get at the fact that leftists have a standard for whether they will vote for someone or not. It makes it pretty clear to me this is precisely what leftists should be doing because that anger tells me that centrists are having to actually listen to leftists instead of spitting in their face constantly and assuming leftists will fall in line without having their input taken into account.
Of course these arguments are always framed as “YOU are the reason we are going to lose” which ignores EVERY SINGLE step along the way the got us to this point of centrists democrats machine gunning themselves in the foot and aggressively ignoring what voters actually want. All of those steps and all of that responsibility is somehow invisible and all of the fault is directed at the voter…for having standards?
Vote undecided in the primaries and in the general well… I am not gonna tell you to vote for genocide Joe even though I don’t disagree for a nano-second Trump is worse. That is a decision everyone has to make for themselves.
I think I will vote for Biden but honestly I just don’t have it in me to try to convince anyone else to vote for someone who is so clearly using their position to aid and facilitate genocide. I do think it is best to think of voting as damage control not the primary strategy and thus there are many very good arguments to vote for Biden, but at the end of the day it is also true that centrist democrats just will not fucking listen unless they are panicking about losing to fascists it seems.
That is only true in the undemocratic 2 party system of the US.
In places where they actually have multiple parties, say 10 or so at least. It is hard to not find a party that you like more than the others.
So if someone doesn’t vote, it means none of the parties are good enough. Otherwise they would vote blank. And if too many people do not vote, it sends a clear signal to the government that they need to change something fast in order to prevent an uprising.
We need ranked choice voting. First past the post virtually guarantees a two party system.
Just don’t go with the mistake we have in Australia where your vote has to transfer.
At the end of the day we effectively have a two party system, because eventually any minor party will funnel their votes towards the two large and near identical NeoLib parties.
So all left votes go to Labor and all right votes go to Liberal, as such Labor don’t give a shit about leftist voters and instead try to poach right wing Lib voters because they know there’s zero chance the left will ever preference Lib so they can’t lose them.
Ranked choice voting is just a primary with fewer steps. Caucuses are already essentially ranked choice.
Ranked choice gives you the most moderate candidate and weeds out the others. Or, gives you the most charismatic demagogue. Notably, Joe Biden and Donald Trump check those boxes.
Ranked choice voting is just a primary with fewer steps
This is wrong. It is a multi-stage runoff election with fewer steps (hence why it’s called “instant runoff”), and that’s a good thing because it means that people are much less likely to invalidate their ballot by voting for a first-preference candidate with no chance of winning.
Ranked choice gives you the most moderate candidate and weeds out the others
Ranked Choice Voting gives you (more often than not*)the most broadly popular candidate. Which is what you should want if you believe in democracy or the concept of a republic.
I feel like this should go without saying, but the goal of democratic reform is not to put the person you like in power, it’s to put the people back in power.
If the most popular candidate happens to be too “moderate” for your tastes, then it’s up to you to advocate for your positions in a way that will change hearts and minds in order to get more people on your side. If you can’t do that, then you really have no business winning a truly democratic election, right?
- There are some statistically possible scenarios in which the most broadly popular does not win a RCV election, but they are far less likely than any version of our current first-past-the-post plurality voting system.
We need STAR voting more. Ranked choice voting is only marginally better than first past the post.
Could you explain star?
Sure! It’s also called approval voting. But the key is it’s called STAR: score then automatic runoff. You rank any of the candidates from 0 to 5. If you don’t rank them, it’s a 0. Then you total all the scores and the highest score wins.
More info here: https://www.starvoting.org
The cool thing about STAR is that I can rank some people a 1 saying “they’re better than nothing!” While voting for my favorites with 5’s. The highest score wins, so the most approved by most people wins.
That is only true in the undemocratic 2 party system of the US.
I think that’s pretty clearly who this post was targeted at.
There it’s indistinguishable from being uninterested in politics. And politicians have no incentives to cater to those that seem unlikely to vote. Null and blank votes are better at showing disaproval of the system, and at making politicians rethink their strategies
I was gonna mention this: You don’t have to vote for anyone, and you can just lie after you leave the ballot blank.
To be fair, coming from one of those places, I do not want to vote either. The socialists party is crony as shit with multiple corruptions affair, and the only other options are the liberals. Guess I’ll vote far-left, but I don’t really like them either for they are statists.
As a dual citizen with Australia:
Vote, vote, vote. You are disrespecting all hard-fought wons by marginalized groups throughout 200+ years of history.
Literally, the first voters in the country were land owning white men.
People died. So you could have a say.
You are disrespecting the dead, and denying you civic duty, and your obligation in the social contract, by not voting.
People should be disgraced and shunned for not voting. I do not care what your political beliefs are, even if they are odious or fickle or contrarian or uninformed to me.
Show up and cast your ballot you otherwise absolute disrespectful coward.
So – and I want to be clear about this – to honour and respect those who fought and died for my right to vote, I should show up and put a cross next to the name of someone I think is a homophobic, transphobic, bigoted piece of shit just because she is less of a homophobic, transphobic bigoted piece of shit than the other person I could put a cross next to the name of?
To me that doesn’t suggest I am showing any honour or respect to anyone. It just says that I am giving up every bit of my dignity, integrity and shame and that when I stand before my ancestors in the Halls of Judgement they will look at me and shake their heads in disgust.
I should show up and put a cross next to the name of someone I think is a homophobic, transphobic, bigoted piece of shit just because she is less of a homophobic, transphobic bigoted piece of shit than the other person I could put a cross next to the name of?
Yes. Either voice your opinion for who is less bad, or have no voice. The game is rigged, but it’s the only game in town.
Either voice your opinion for who is less bad, or have no voice.
That’s not how living in reality works. Tell that to the rioters of the stonewall inn. That was the most meaningful change to the fight for LGBTQ+ rights. They used their voices for multiple nights and it mobilized the community like never before. No thanks to the “repspectables” Also what do you tell the disenfranchised, the people that have been robbed of their opportunity to vote? You are essentially telling them that they are voiceless which isn’t true in the slightest. They are just living under a repressive government that people have voted for time and time again thinking they are doing something good. Yet what this allows people to do is say they don’t need to participate in direct action and they create “officials” that maintain narratives that further disenfranchise more people. And democrats do this too, not just republicans.
That’s not how living in reality works
Funny choice of words, because in reality, it’s a zero sum game and you either vote for the person closest to your views or risk getting the person you disagree with more. That is the reality of the situation.
They used their voices for multiple nights and it mobilized the community like never before
Yes, direct action is very cool and very hip, and I encourage it, but we’re talking about voting.
You are essentially telling them that they are voiceless
No, I am telling people that abstain from voting that they are voiceless, because they are choosing to not use it because of ~dignity~ and ~integrity~
Yet what this allows people to do is say they don’t need to participate in direct action and they create “officials” that maintain narratives that further disenfranchise more people. And democrats do this too, not just republicans.
Nobody said anything like that, you are injecting that narrative out of nowhere. Nobody said voting for Biden is the only political thing you have to do this year. Go advocate and go protest, I encourage you, but also vote.
Yes, direct action is very cool and very hip, and I encourage it, but we’re talking about voting.
not voting and voicing why you are not voting has so far created more discourse around the failures of the democratic party than saying “vote blue, no matter who”. so to me this seems much more direct than just quietly voting.
dems thought they may have it in the bag with biden but they don’t. the biden admin has the lowest approval rating of any administration. enabling a genocide and aligning with the country perpetrating it for most of your political career will do that to your approval rating.
all they have to do is say permanent ceasefire and they get all those votes back. its not a hard concept. maybe instead of threatening voters with what will happen if they lose, they should do the thing that is preventing them from winning
not voting and voicing why you are not voting has so far created more discourse around the failures of the democratic party than saying “vote blue, no matter who”. so to me this seems much more direct than just quietly voting.
Sure, but is creating discourse the goal? Is the discourse even helping?
all they have to do is say permanent ceasefire and they get all those votes back. its not a hard concept. maybe instead of threatening voters with what will happen if they lose, they should do the thing that is preventing them from winning
Agree
Sure, but is creating discourse the goal?
I can’t speak for everyone but for me, yes
Is the discourse even helping?
Depends on a lot of things. I know I’m not the only one that feels this way. Ik there are aggressive democrat voters trying to shame and bully people into compromising themselves in an already compromising situation. They are told that what they think doesn’t matter and they “don’t have a voice” unless they vote. They don’t have a voice because y’all wont listen. We have voted, for what… to feel dirty and used by people you will never meet? I hope my replies and posts reach the eyes of those so they know that they aren’t voiceless and that this is an effective means of protest. Its obviously working by how much time and energy has been spent to try and convince us we are wrong. This is how democrats disenfranchise leftists. By saying this kind of protest and that kind of protest is ineffective, which is as ive pointed out demonstrably false because they are talking about it. You’re only allowed to protest a certain way even by democrats standards.
One fateful night, Marsha P. Johnson dropped a bag of bricks on a cop car and inspired millions of LGBTQ+ people over multiple generations. A trans woman that lived on the streets and was disenfranchised her whole life and couldn’t vote made real change happen that politicians could only dream of. Even trumps failed insurrection can’t put anything on that series of nights at the Stonewall Inn
There is a time to vote for people based on principle and that is what you are asking me to do by voting for biden. When the next major genocide is literally being conducted with the full support of the United States and the ones overseeing it are up for election and you can literally stop another holocaust like event from happening by telling those in power that they better do something or fuck off and make a lot of noise about it, then you have to take that opportunity.
I can still protest against them.
You seem to be missing my main problem – you are asking me to put a cross against the name of someone who will strip away the basic human rights of groups of people. Which is not something I am willing to do.
Especially if I am doing it in the name of those who fought and died for their rights.
I have some integrity.
If you want to protest against them, go ahead, I have no problem with that.
you are asking me to put a cross against the name of someone who will strip away the basic human rights of groups of people. Which is not something I am willing to do
Okay, but as I said, the reality of the situation is to put your cross on someone you don’t like or risk someone you really don’t like. I understand and empathize that it might feel like moral compromise, but I see it less like “I endorse this person and their principles” and more like harm reduction.
I have some integrity.
Is it integrity? If you are, by inaction, helping someone who will remove those human rights faster, aren’t you putting those high-minded morals above the physical reality of what will happen to those marginalized groups?
If you want to protest against them, go ahead, I have no problem with that.
you are asking me to put a cross against the name of someone who will strip away the basic human rights of groups of people. Which is not something I am willing to do
Okay, but as I said, the reality of the situation is to put your cross on someone you don’t like or risk someone you really don’t like. I understand and empathize that it might feel like moral compromise, but I see it less like “I endorse this person and their principles” and more like harm reduction.
And if they are as bad as each other?
I live in the UK and for the past five years the Labour party has been – from what I can see – turning into the Tory party. It has had no policies that aren’t Tory policies. Starmer is so scared of being seen as Jeremy Corbyn that he has become a Tory MP in waiting. He is so scared of not being elected that he is pandering to the far right. He doesn’t stand up for anyone who needs standing up for.
Voting for him… I really don’t see a difference between him and the Tories.
I have some integrity.
Is it integrity? If you are, by inaction, helping someone who will remove those human rights faster, aren’t you putting those high-minded morals above the physical reality of what will happen to those marginalized groups?
And if I put someone in power who enacts policies to the marginalised groups being erased, beaten, imprisoned or killed? Should I feel better about that?
And if they are as bad as each other?
If they are both truly as bad as each other, then yeah there is no harm reduction.
Should I feel better about that?
Would the other person have done it faster? Again, I don’t see voting as a complete endorsement; if there is an area in which one candidate is less bad than the other, then it is in your best interest to vote for them
Sounds like you think that one: we live in a democracy, and two: that democracy somehow equals more freedom. this is not the case.
Western democracy originated in ancient Greece. This political system granted democratic citizenship to free men, while excluding slaves, foreigners and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, this was what democracy meant. An elite class of free men made all the decisions for everyone. Before Athens adopted democracy, aristocrats ruled society, so “rule by the people”, or the idea of a government controlled (in theory) by all its (free) male citizens instead of a few wealthy families seemed like a good deal. But really it was just a new iteration of Aristocracy rule rather than the revolution it’s painted as. The rich still rule society by feeding voters carefully constructed propaganda and keeping everyone poor, overworked and desperate to be granted basic needs by the state.
In democracies today, only legal citizens of a country are granted democracy. In a lot of countries, people who have been convicted of a “crime” are denied the right to vote, regardless of how long ago they served their sentence. In the US, this is used to deny voting rights to minority groups, who make up a large proportion of the prison population.
In some societies only a small minority group are allowed to participate in the democracy. In Apartheid South Africa, the minority group (European settlers) granted themselves democracy and excluded the native majority, using democracy to deprive the native population of the rights granted to European settlers. Anarchy, of course, is an absence of government; of rulers. Democracy aims for the individual to be governed, ruled, controlled by others.
America is and always has been an illegitimate apartheid state.
In the US, this is used to deny voting rights to minority groups, who make up a large proportion of the prison population.
Sure sounds like The Powers That Be are trying to prevent marginalized people from voting, we should probably vote against that. I wonder which party is more favorable to enfranchising convicts and making voting easier.
I wonder which party is more favorable to enfranchising convicts
neither the republican or establishment democrats are interested in that
One is definitely more actively opposed
oh really? NYS is a blue state no? One of the bluest, as I have been told. Should have some decent legislation surrounding incarceration, right? You ever hear of securis? Do you know how much it costs to talk to an incarcerated individual over the phone and how much that company makes in profit price gouging incarcerated folks families?
Democrats allow this to happen.
In new york, they were making hand sanitizer for COVID with prison labor. Yea, big blue New York uses prison labor. Very left of them. I’m sure the democrats are really interested in rights for convicts.
Yeah, that’s it… lecture and gaslight the people who have seen what you refuse to admit - that’s the way to get them back on your side.
People died. So you could have a say.
Innocent people also died at the hands of the government that was voted in. Many people have died for amerika’s imperial expansion and due to it. Many have been indentured and still are.
People should be disgraced and shunned for not voting.
What if the state bars you from voting because of past criminal history, regardless of time served? What if you are disabled and cannot make it to the ballot and you live somewhere that has heavily restricted mail in voting? What if you are unhoused and don’t have a physical address? You are calling to have these people shunned? How democratic and fair of you.
your obligation in the social contract
As if the social contract is upheld by the people you vote in. We get lied to so they get the vote and then we don’t even have recourse to sue or hold them accountable. All we can do is “vote them out” but then they tell us if we don’t vote for them, the world will literally end cause the other guy is evil. As if to say democrats are a force for good. lmao
The ability to vote and participate in a democracy is one thing of many that people have fought for, yes, so it should not be taken for granted. Ignoring it is throwing away the power you and everybody else who can vote have to influence how things will be in the future.
For there not being any power in withholding a vote, people sure are upset about people threatening to do it.
It has the power to let the other guy win, and for all of us, especially the most vulnerable among us, to suffer more greatly. Is has the power to relinquish control of our nation to a reactionary authoritarian nationalist movement that won’t give power back willingly.
It does not, however, have the power to make things better.
I think you’ve missed the point.
Im not ignoring my right to vote. I am using my right to participate or not as a catalyst for dialogue. Also voting someone in doesn’t guarantee they will do what we want them to or even what they say they will do. this has been proven time and time again. at this moment they want something from me, my vote, and I am denying them that until they change. Do you give a child what it wants just because it is whining? no. these politicians are supposed to answer to us, not the other way around.
Removed by mod
You are disrespecting the dead
you are disrespecting dead anarchists and communists by saying you need to participate in bourgeois virtue signaling instead of direct action for your fellows
Who said “instead of”?
One of the things I’ve found as someone who has moves between countries and continents is how different your exposure to news and issues is. I am not a fan of out of country voters and in this case I doubt they will make a difference, and there are plenty of them, retirees, who will just follow what Fox News tells them because they are the international propaganda arm that appeals to expats that are within a retirement bubble where they are not even directly affected by their vote.
But everyone in the US should be campaigning in the streets, putting out bulletins of how corrupt Trump is and how it was an issue before he even ran for president, and how corrupt he has continued to be and influenced by internal interests intent on weakening the US. If there are no ready to print bulletins, make them and post them for others to print and distribute. Specially in the Southern states, show how much of one of those big fancy snake oil salesman from the North he really is and just how much he has been fooling everyone. Tell them not to rely on those who are bought into the Trump diatribes so that lobbyists can get politicians on the tab, because they are really only interested in making products out of them for the next for years. Remind them of how 2020 ended up and what followed, how Trump’s dissing and dismissal of the WHO had consequences, and how it was only after he was removed that actions were taken to avoid getting the US stuck in the same rut China still is. Tell them how just as he dismissed WHO, he will cause a disaster with NATO, an organization commanded and empowering the US, and how a Trump win will lead to a complete loss of US power to foreign invaders already setting their sights on US soil in Alaska.
Recognize their political inclinations and points out how even well-respected representatives like Mitt Romney have been driven out of their party by charlatans, and if they are ok with it, that they should see themselves in the mirror and how they’ve changed since 2012. I know this is tough, but the long lost art of critical thought involves seeing and appealing to things from their perspective even when you might disagree with them yet are far better than an orange authoritarian clown. Don’t campaign for Biden if you are that really disillusioned with him, campaign against Trump and for the Trump alternatives that would have appealed to the voters and would have been candidates but no longer are capable of being because of how much his snake oil has rotted the party.
And I guess people from outside the US as well, since their bubbles will certainly by trying to get them to. Unless you want to vote for Trump, then your vote has already been preregistered so those nasty Dems don’t fake them, don’t worry about it :)
Whilst I’m not in US with it’s Power Duopoly system, were I’ve lived I’ve always made a point of voting in the elections I can vote, and if none of the options appeals to me, I just vote blank.
Abstention out of principle does get mixed with abstention out of laziness, out of disconnect from politics or simply because of not being able to go vote, but a blank vote is a statement of “I did go to the trouble of going to vote just to register my dissatisfaction with all available options”.
I’ve also been on the other side (manning a voting place) and I don’t recommend spoiling your vote (if voting with a paper ballot) as whilst the people talling the votes will indeed see your beautiful artistic depiction of male genitalia or read your strongly worded message of disgust with the selection of candidates available, it won’t go beyond them as in the tally it just gets mixed with people that incorrectly filled-in the ballot (such as multiple marks, marks significantly outside the box or, in the US, hanging chads).
