• TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      11·
      10 months ago

      Maybe an American opinion:

      I will be no party to it and that will make little difference. You will take large part and bravely march to the polls, and that also will make no difference. Stop running Russia and giving Chinese advice when we cannot rule ourselves decently. Stop yelling about a democracy we do not have. Democracy is dead in the United States. Yet there is still nothing to replace real democracy. Drop the chains, then, that bind our brains. Drive the money-changers from the seats of the Cabinet and the halls of Congress. Call back some faint spirit of Jefferson and Lincoln,and when again we can hold a fair election on real issues, let’s vote, and not till then. Is this impossible? Then democracy in America is impossible.

      -Why I Won’t Vote: W.E.B. Du Bois

      • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
        6·
        10 months ago

        That’s a very poignant piece, and it was my motivation back in 2000 when I refused to vote for Bush or Gore. It was also before I knew anything else about Du Bois and the context in which he wrote that piece, and it certainly wasn’t when a guy like Trump was running.

          • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
            7·
            10 months ago

            I mean, in the greater sense yes. I was one of countless apathetic or cynical people who could have actually voted and possibly made a difference. People have been reposting and miscontextualizing this Du Bois bit since the 50’s, trying to trick people who think their smart into feeling good about not voting. They do this because they know it works.

              • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
                3·
                10 months ago

                He was a 90 something year old black man when he wrote this piece in 1956. Compared to the things he lived through earlier in his life, the stakes in 56 were a little less urgent. Likewise the stakes he lived through in 56 weren’t as urgent as the stakes this year.

                He also wrote it in the hopes that voter apathy would send a message. He was right… but not how he hoped. It sent a message that spreading voter apathy was a better tactic than changing policy. Again, there’s a reason why this piece is trotted out every four years.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  3·
                  10 months ago

                  He also wrote it in the hopes that voter apathy would send a message. He was right… but not how he hoped.

                  I’d be interested to read more about how he intended it differently, if you have it available.

                  Edit: I can’t find where he regretted it. You didn’t just make that up, did you?

                  • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
                    2·
                    10 months ago

                    I didn’t say he regretted anything, just that unscrupulous people seized on the perceived theme of apathy and have tried to weaponize it ever since.

                    Edit: from this op-ed

                    W.E.B Du Bois (1868-1963) was an African American civil rights activist, sociologist and philosopher. He developed a theory of how one should vote tactically. Crucially, Du Bois did not equate voting tactically with voting for the lesser of two evils. In his essay I won’t vote (1956), Du Bois outlines his general strategy for how to cast your vote. You should:

                    • Research who best represents your interests. Go with the candidate, not necessarily with the party (in Du Bois’ case, he looked at the extent to which a candidate was willing to help the cause of African Americans)
                    • If none of the main candidates represents your interests, you should vote “for a third party even when its chances [are] hopeless.”
                    • “If the main parties were unsatisfactory; or, in absence of a third choice, [you should be] voting for the lesser of two evils.”
                    • If there is no third choice, and you are deeply dissatisfied with the candidates on offer, it is acceptable not to vote. This was controversial, especially given Du Bois’ earlier insistence on tactical voting. Yet, Du Bois believed this could send a strong signal “It is hope that if twenty-five million voters refrain from voting in 1956 because of their own accord…this might make the American people ask how much longer this dumb farce can proceed without even a whimper of protest.”

                    So Du Bois’ understanding of tactical voting is much richer than merely voting for the lesser of two evils (although he did think it was sometimes necessary, see (3)). You don’t always vote to change the outcome. You may also wish to vote — especially in a safe seat — to give a signal. Refraining from voting also sends a signal, but needs to be done only in extreme cases where you have not a single acceptable candidate and all candidates are equally bad.