|
1) Is this the root of the problem? Do you fundamentally see politics as zero-sum and every single political choice as making life worse for someone? Do you believe that, say, providing food and housing will make life worse for people? I've also already said that, multiple times that your not always going to agree with people. But sometimes the level of harm done is going to make people less likely to trust you when you say you understand and think of them as equal partners in politics? If you vote for someone who continues to do harm to a specific minority group because "least bad option" it's quite likely that members of that group will find anything you say backing them to be somewhat hollow. That was the sole point here. 5) Can you not grasp how supporting a system by engaging with is helps to prevent the growth of different systems? I even keep saying "yes, if you really do want to vote you can do so" all that people should be allowed to do is not vote if they don't want to as well. Or heck, spoil the ballot. My parents don't vote for police commissioners because they see it as something that should not be an elected office, and have written letters in protest about it. Voting supports the structures that exist. If you don't believe that it's fine, but if you don't then what are you voting for, if not for supporting the structure that exists now and choosing who runs it? Then why are you talking to me? I'm not even an American. I keep having to point this out, again and again and again. My contribution is going "I'm not sure this is the case and am going to speak a little bit". It's D&D after all and if folks just talk to themselves, it's not good. At the start of this conversation I didn't consider myself morally different? I was mainly going "People should be allowed to express their displeasure with the political structure that currently exists by none interaction, as long as they are doing other stuff in parallel to improve the political situation for people alongside that". But seeing the amount of people going "I would vote for someone doing a genocide and be okay about it because it's the least bad option" is making me feel as if I might actually have a completely different moral framework. And when it is active harm to a minority group? I don't expect every bit of legislation that is passed to have no negative consequences, but trying to do the best for the greatest number whilst bearing in mind the harm can be done is the goal, not to just go "well it'll always cause harm, let 'er rip" seems a bit odd. None participation in unjust structures not changing anything does not seem to be borne out by things like boycotts, strikes, denial of service etc. I fundamentally just disagree that "ALWAYS vote for the lesser evil" is a statement that is always true. It's a level of compromise that, once again, if you are okay to make that is a point of fundamental disagreement. There is always going to be compromise, but at some point I don't think it's good, either morally or politically, to do so. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 07:25 on May 11, 2024 |
#
?
May 11, 2024 07:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:And when it is active harm to a minority group? I don't expect every bit of legislation that is passed to have no negative consequences, but trying to do the best for the greatest number whilst bearing in mind the harm can be done is the goal, not to just go "well it'll always cause harm, let 'er rip" seems a bit odd. None participation in unjust structures not changing anything does not seem to be borne out by things like boycotts, strikes, denial of service etc. Because non-participation in voting achieves nothing. In the States we have two choices for president, and that's it. And outside of some outliers, Congress is made up of folks from our two major parties as well. There is a binary choice, and one side of that binary choice will be more appealing than the other. And "trying to do the best for the greatest number whilst bearing in mind the harm that can be done" is literally the point of voting for the lesser evil. And with the polarization of US politics in the last couple of decades, we have a party that has gone way off the loving deep end in terms of trying to cause harm to minority groups. Voting against them is very important to me and to many other people, even if it means voting for someone who I'm not thrilled about. Also: Dirk the Average, in the post you loving quoted posted:it can be done alongside other actions, such as protests, demonstrations, and strikes. We agree that other political actions are absolutely effective. Refusing to vote, however, does not do anything to effect change.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 07:29
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:We agree that other political actions are absolutely effective. Refusing to vote, however, does not do anything to effect change. It achieves not showing support for an unjust system. If your saying "we have two choices and you have to vote for one of them even if they are both doing crimes against humanity, no matter what". That does not seem like a politically useful thing because it means you can be counted upon to vote for anyone, no matter how bad they are, as long as they are one micron different from their opponent. If that is the case then there is no reason to appeal to you. On top of the other problem with it that, fundamentally, voting does not seem to have much of an effect when we look at what people want vs what is delivered politically. But this is the thing, past a certain point "bearing in mind the harm" outweighs any good done. That is literally the point I am making and drawing a line at a set point differently from yourselves. Just different mark you, not "better" just at a different point to where you might. If you want to keep voting then that is fine. But please do just bear in mind that some people will disagree with you and have legitimate reasons for that. It doesn't make you bad or them bad, just different approaches to an ethical problem. And I would say none participation in electoralism can still lead to change, but it is better done via direct action.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 08:04
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:It achieves not showing support for an unjust system.. This is the crux of your argument; you believe that 'showing support' is a meaningful, real political concept that matters, and 'not showing support' can cause structural change. Here's a trivial counterexample: Up until the Suffragettes movement, women could not vote. 50% of the human population of every country with voting (notwithstanding additional restrictions, like property ownership) was disenfranchised. They could not vote. And yet the system chugged along just fine without being brought down by womens anarchist groups (though those existed, and good for them). So if the system can withstand 50% of otherwise eligible adults not voting while still maintaining the appearance of legitimacy, then how in the blue loving blazes do you think that if the leftmost 10% gets together and opts out of voting is going to delegitimize the system? Because what happened when women couldn't vote was men wrote all the laws governing women. What happens when leftists don't vote is the right writes all the laws governing labour relations.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 11:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:1) Is this the root of the problem? Do you fundamentally see politics as zero-sum and every single political choice as making life worse for someone? Do you believe that, say, providing food and housing will make life worse for people? I've also already said that, multiple times that your not always going to agree with people. But sometimes the level of harm done is going to make people less likely to trust you when you say you understand and think of them as equal partners in politics? If you vote for someone who continues to do harm to a specific minority group because "least bad option" it's quite likely that members of that group will find anything you say backing them to be somewhat hollow. That was the sole point here. No, I agree that politics is not "zero-sum." I'm pointing out that your definition of "making peoples life worse" is so broad as to encompass pretty much all political decisions. Providing food and housing will absolutely make life better for a lot of people, and it is a tremendous good... but a certain number of people who won't benefit from that will see such spending as taking away from things they care about, and from their point of view, it will make life worse for them. Josef bugman posted:5) Can you not grasp how supporting a system by engaging with is helps to prevent the growth of different systems? I cannot. Nothing is stopping Bob from taking an hour out of one day (once every several years) to vote before going back to the picket line, or to petitioning for ranked choice voting/proportional representation, or advocating for their cause online, or even to his militia camp to train for the Inevitable Glorious Revolution. quote:At the start of this conversation I didn't consider myself morally different? I was mainly going "People should be allowed to express their displeasure with the political structure that currently exists by none interaction, as long as they are doing other stuff in parallel to improve the political situation for people alongside that". But seeing the amount of people going "I would vote for someone doing a genocide and be okay about it because it's the least bad option" is making me feel as if I might actually have a completely different moral framework. People might wish that neither of the major candidates wins. But even if 90% of people in the U.S. cast a ballot with "None of the Above" written in for President, there are no circumstances in which "None of the Above" is going to be sworn into office. "None of the Above" is not going to write or sign legislation, "None of the Above" is not going to pick a cabinet and nominate judges. There is always going to be an actual person occupying the office. The only signal that all not voting or writing in "None of the Above," or voting for a hopeless third party will send is that you have no strong opinions on whether the lesser or greater evil wins. In remaining neutral, by definition you would have no problem with the "greater evil" winning and advancing policies the "greater evil" wants. Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 17:47 on May 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 13:28
|
|
|
In a vacuum, voting for the lesser evil might be the most optimal. But in the world we live in now, it has compounded effects over time that makes it more difficult for actual good that can be achieved non-electorally. We just saw a bunch of college kids get injured and arrested at the hands of the police across the country. In blue states like California and New York, it was no different. The party of lesser evil is also considering turning the convention into a hybrid physical/remote thing to prevent protestors — those who are showing their displeasure for the current actions of the the president and others in Congress — from causing a stink. Additionally, we see the less-evil parts of the party entrench themselves in a network of donors and allies and make it difficult to unseat them. The lesser-evil has given support to candidates who go against the stated goals of the party such as when Pelosi backed anti-abortion Cuellar. Or their goals align with the greater-evil like on supporting a genocide like Fetterman, Schumer, and Biden. Then there’s the endurance factor. People can only take voting for the lesser-evil for so long before they feel hopeless about the whole thing especially when it’s people who look like them or love like them or live like them getting the short end of the stick over and over again. People want to see positive change but either don’t get it, get something very meager, or get something regressive, even when the lesser-evil party is in control of Congress and the White House. Eventually, they’ll get exhausted by everything getting worse around them and stop voting for the lesser-evil and either for people they like or not vote at all.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 15:09
|
|
|
Uh... none of that explains how letting the greater evil win is going to lead to a better outcome than trying to prevent it. That's what you're going to do, if you convince people not to vote for the lesser evil, so I think it really needs to be addressed. It all seems to be an argument in favor of "hey, get involved in decision-making before the general election, so that you can steer the course of your party instead of just accepting it as being better than the other party." Josef bugman posted:5) Gave you an answer, and now, instead of reading it you instead go "uhhh that's not prevented by voting". It kind of is, parallel structures thrive in times of weakness of central governance and become more likely to change things when the system does not provide for people. Your vote helps to make sure that those do not develop or, if they do, that they are something that can be either co-opted or crushed by extant power structures. This is basic stuff mate. Just wanted to come back to this... If you think there's some bit of theory we're missing and it explains a gap between your thought processes and ours, you're always welcome to share that. I'm happy to say "ok, I'm not familiar with that" and go read it if the length is within reason. If, on the other hand, you just state some non-obvious proposition as axiomatic, and follow it up with a "this is basic stuff mate" then you might as well be a chud saying "well of course there's climate change, there's always been climate change! Silly liberals." Sharing sources like this would help if you don't want to come off as a bullshitter. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 15:29 on May 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 15:25
|
|
|
I'm willing to take a look at the worst light my current position could be seen in. Joe Biden is complicit in genocide. He's a loving horrific president responsible for some truly monstrous human suffering. And, given the hosed up stupidly contrived terrible choice reality has presented us with, I currently think the most ethical thing I can do is vote for him. I'll be honest, I do not get the thought process it takes to reach the conclusion that not voting is in any way more ethical, and at this point I feel bad asking for clarification at this point because so much digital ink has been spilled explaining it and it's just... completely going over my head, I guess. But has anyone been willing to actually stand by the case for not voting in the starkest presentation possible? Like, even if I don't understand the reasons, I'd respect it if someone could say, "It is important to me to not vote, even if it means sacrificing trans people's health and women's bodily autonomy." I may not understand why it's so important to you to not vote, but at least I would understand that we are in the same world, and the reasons aren't just denial of (what I understand to be) reality.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 15:42
|
|
|
As someone who has lived for two decades under an oppressive right-wing dictator before finally escaping to the US, I'd take the option to vote for a lesser evil any day. It may feel frustrating and disempowering, but having the greater evil as the only non-option is worse.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 15:56
|
|
|
I’ve been busy and haven’t been able to keep up with the thread, but thank you for responding! I appreciate the insight.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
Eiba posted:I'm willing to take a look at the worst light my current position could be seen in. Joe Biden is complicit in genocide. He's a loving horrific president responsible for some truly monstrous human suffering. I think the problem with this question is that it is very loaded, you have specifically included and excluded certain things to frame it in the way that creates a moral imperative to vote for Biden. You say "sacrificing women's bodily autonomy" and "sacrificing trans people's health" but what does that mean, how is women's bodily autonomy being exactly more "sacrificed" how is trans health? What are the other sacrifices being made, why are specific issues included and excluded to be contrasted specifically against a single vote? Any kind of question can be loaded this way "It is important for me to vote, even if it means supporting a genocide enabler". You can make a make a case against not voting for Trump using a similarly specific example, such as saying "It is important for me not to vote, even if it sacrifices the further weakening of the American international hegemony". My view is that voting for politicans that have positions you do not find unsupportable (this requires your own personal moral calculus), and witholding your votes from politicians you do, is the only action you can take to change the makeup of the representatives within a party. Electing a leftist leader is just going to see them systematically undermined by people with agendas that run against theirs and as such you need to change the composition if you want to change the policies. Part of that is not voting for a party leader when their actions do not represent your positions. There were a lot of things Joe Biden could have done to not alienate potential voters that he has chosen not to do. Joe Biden did not have to be the democratic nominee, the party has chosen him, they receive the votes based on that choice. There is no reason to believe the democratic party will necessarily take the correct lessons from Joe Biden losing, but they will absolutely not take the correct ones from Joe Biden winning. If you really want to pursue electoralism, you should be pursuing preferential voting as hard as you can because that removes a lot of the "wasted vote" problem of voting for people you actually want, allowing third parties to be represented without being considered "spoiler candidates" and allowing for people actually have their choices represented by preference allocation.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 09:37
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:1) You don't see how a minority person would perhaps feel somewhat let down if you vote for someone who is going to take away their rights because "the other side would be worse"? Do you think that a person would not have the right to feel that way?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 11:33
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:In a vacuum, voting for the lesser evil might be the most optimal. But in the world we live in now, it has compounded effects over time that makes it more difficult for actual good that can be achieved non-electorally. More people voting for the lesser evil over the last 30 years might well have prevented the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, millions of deaths, maybe even the pandemic (which could have been contained with swift, decisive action). If you think that making the world good is bad because it postpones your revolution then we have no common ground.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 11:40
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Literally the only way this argument makes any sense as an accelerationist argument. It's not an accelerationist argument, it's about support for good candidates and not supporting bad ones in the hope that you can change the direction of a party. Unprovable assertions (in the positive or the negative) are not a counter argument.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 11:51
|
|
|
hooman posted:It's not an accelerationist argument, it's about support for good candidates and not supporting bad ones in the hope that you can change the direction of a party. Unprovable assertions (in the positive or the negative) are not a counter argument. So when they said "...actual good that can be achieved non-electorally" they meant supporting good candidates? The Artificial Kid fucked around with this message at 14:03 on May 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 14:01
|
|
|
hooman posted:I think the problem with this question is that it is very loaded, you have specifically included and excluded certain things to frame it in the way that creates a moral imperative to vote for Biden. You say "sacrificing women's bodily autonomy" and "sacrificing trans people's health" but what does that mean, how is women's bodily autonomy being exactly more "sacrificed" how is trans health? What are the other sacrifices being made, why are specific issues included and excluded to be contrasted specifically against a single vote? quote:Any kind of question can be loaded this way "It is important for me to vote, even if it means supporting a genocide enabler". You can make a make a case against not voting for Trump using a similarly specific example, such as saying "It is important for me not to vote, even if it sacrifices the further weakening of the American international hegemony". The one potential nitpick I introduced was changing "support" to "vote for". There's a lot that could be said about that change, and I will concede immediately that voting is a form of support, but I feel "vote for" is more accurate because "support" has additional connotations that make me uncomfortable in this case. If the exact phrasing of "It is important to me to not vote, even if it means sacrificing trans people's health and women's bodily autonomy" has similar issues in specific words, that's fine with me. In retrospect "sacrifice" is pretty loaded. Will you say something like, "It is important to me to not vote, even if it risks adversely affecting trans people's health and women's bodily autonomy."? As you said, I am specifically including/excluding things in such a way that makes it seem like there's a moral imperative to vote for Biden. The reason I am doing so is that no one has disputed the things I'm including and I don't understand the things I'm excluding. I'm asking things in this way so I can understand that you really think not voting is that important. Based on how people have evaded this framing so far, I have begun to wonder if the people who advocate not voting do not actually believe they are risking abortion access and trans rights. Edit: I wasn't going to respond to this because it's tangential to what I'm actually asking about but... quote:My view is that voting for politicans that have positions you do not find unsupportable (this requires your own personal moral calculus), and witholding your votes from politicians you do, is the only action you can take to change the makeup of the representatives within a party. Eiba fucked around with this message at 14:54 on May 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 14:38
|
|
|
Thanks for this good response.Eiba posted:I think it's pretty clear based on track records that Trump what direction Trump will push abortion access and trans rights. I'm not super interested in trying to prove that in this discussion. If you are honestly saying "I don't believe Trump will negatively impact women's bodily autonomy or trans people's health," that's fine. That is a response to what I asked and I appreciate learning that your basis for not voting is that you have fundamentally different belief about the likely consequences of this election. Your position makes perfect sense if you don't think anything is actually on the line, and at the same time is irrelevant to my own decision making process because I do believe important things are on the line. My question wasn't meant to imply that Trump was not poo poo on those issues, my issue is with the framing, if you look at this as nothing but a choice between reproductive health and trans rights and being inconvenienced by the process of voting, there is an unquestionable moral calculus impelling you to vote. I also think important things are on the line like sending a message to the Democratic Party that serving up dogshit genocide supporters like Joe Biden means that you don't get votes. That if you are willing to throw Palestinians under the bus for your political goals, as well as migrants under the bus, that indicates to me that you are happy to throw anyone else under the bus when it becomes expedient? I have no faith that the democratic party as it is currently constituted will meaningfully act to protect women's health or trans people. Even the Title IX stuff doesn't go far enough in protecting trans people. Eiba posted:That is exactly what I'm saying, with one small change for accuracy: In this election it is important for me to vote, even if it means giving my vote to a genocide enabler. There. I said it. I honestly said a similar formulation in the post you're responding to. That's the point of my request- I'm not going to say, "Actually Joe Biden is fine or what do you really mean by 'genocide enabler'? Let's go on a 13 post tangent about the definition of 'is'." Nah, I think people who can't stomach to vote for Joe Biden are correct in their assessment of Joe Biden, and I'm prepared to accept that and move on to ask why that means they shouldn't vote for Joe Biden. This is where I disagree, and that's fine, I don't think either of us are provably wrong here, because to me the line falls at genocide enabler. I don't want the democrats to run any more of them. I won't personally support/vote for them. There are some lesser evils I will not tolerate and this is one. This is an individual thing, so I'm not going to talk about this further, because where we draw lines is individual and that's fine. So I will discuss strategy below. Eiba posted:The one potential nitpick I introduced was changing "support" to "vote for". There's a lot that could be said about that change, and I will concede immediately that voting is a form of support, but I feel "vote for" is more accurate because "support" has additional connotations that make me uncomfortable in this case. I think the bolded is better, but I would go with, "I think it is more valuable long term to not vote for Joe Biden now, in spite of the damage to women's health and trans health that may do". Biden had 3 years of full control to create abortion rights, and he has failed to do so. There are a lot of reasons you can give for that, but that is a failure that lays at his and the democratic party's feet. So, I don't see those battles as currently winnable with Joe Biden in the white house, maybe if he isn't president there will be a strong push from the democrats to do something about it, maybe we will see change within the party when they aren't having to run cover for their own failure on the issue? I can't read the future, I wish I could, because then I wouldn't have this discussion, I'd simply know. Eiba posted:My view is that you can safely do that in a primary and not risk horrific consequences. It sucks that incumbents don't get competitive primaries more often. Vote withdrawl during the electoral process is there to remove bad incumbents, so that you do have better options in primaries. Which means poo poo incumbents need to lose, so you need to not vote for poo poo incumbents. Also electoral reform.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 15:09
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:So when they said "...actual good that can be achieved non-electorally" they meant supporting good candidates? Fair point, I had missed that. Doesn't make the unprovable assertions useful as a response though.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 15:11
|
|
|
hooman posted:I think the bolded is better, but I would go with, "I think it is more valuable long term to not vote for Joe Biden now, in spite of the damage to women's health and trans health that may do". I don't feel like a lower turnout would do much to change anything for the better, but I can see that you really do. I'll be honest, on an emotional level it's kind of horrifying for me to see what damage you're willing to accept to that end I still don't fully understand, but this is what I asked for. I'll have to think more on what you're saying might be achieved by not voting, though I think it's unlikely I'll ever be certain enough about the good that could come of that to risk the terrible stuff that will likely happen under Trump.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 15:21
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Okay. Honestly, that makes me take your position a lot more seriously. That's fair. I won't tell you that I am right. I don't know that withholding your vote will make things better, I can't promise you the democrats won't double down on shittiness, but I can say this is the only path I can see that could result in not having the only non-Republican option be pro-genocide. I don't know if it's any consolation but my experience of being trapped within a capitalist system is nothing but a series of horrifying damages I am forced to accept. I still believe that can change, Joe Biden is not the man to change that. To stand any chance of replacing lovely incumbents, they have to lose. EDIT: Do you think the next Republican will be better than Trump? Do you think they will do more or less damage than Trump? I don't personally see Trump's views as an outlier, I see him as the new normal, and at least he's dumb, vain, lazy and self-sabotaging. I'd prefer him over someone with all the same vile poo poo but semi-competent. hooman fucked around with this message at 15:51 on May 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 15:42
|
|
|
hooman posted:I think the bolded is better, but I would go with, "I think it is more valuable long term to not vote for Joe Biden now, in spite of the damage to women's health and trans health that may do". Who did you vote for in 2016? If not Clinton, did you use the same accelerationist argument back then?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
hooman posted:That's fair. I won't tell you that I am right. I don't know that withholding your vote will make things better, I can't promise you the democrats won't double down on shittiness, but I can say this is the only path I can see that could result in not having the only non-Republican option be pro-genocide. Yeah, that's basically my mentality as well. As a Californian in a deep blue district, my vote is about as meaningless as it gets in this country. Everyone's vote individually is usually pretty meaningless, but in our electoral system, given where I live it's particularly meaningless. If the way that California swings in November comes down to my vote, Biden will have already almost certainly lost all the swing states in the country and will therefore lose in a landslide. But that's not going to happen, in all likelihood; Biden will win CA, noted pro-genocide ghoul Adam Schiff will be my new senator, noted Clintonite Mike Thompson will be reelected for the bazillionth time as my representative, and I will have close to zero say in the matter on any of these. So I may as well use my vote to send as clear a message as I possibly can. Who knows, maybe it will land like a lead balloon, as it did in 2020 when the Greens won a laughably small number of votes. I still see that as a better use of my vote than sending the message that I approve of Joe Biden's policies. Someone asked earlier what the actual harm in voting for Biden would be. For me, it's twofold: one, it's a waste of an opportunity for me to add my otherwise worthless vote to the total of a third-party candidate whose stated goals align with mine more than Biden's. Two, we all know the narrative that both the Administration and the legacy media will spin if younger(ish) voters turn out en masse for Biden: "Oh look at that, young people don't care about Palestinians being victims of genocide after all! Looks like we should just keep going with our current policy, or at most make marginal improvements." I don't want that to be the lesson that the country learns from this. I want the Dem leadership to be scared shitless that they've hosed this situation up so thoroughly. Some folks may object and say, "Well, couldn't the message that they take from a lower-than-average young(ish) voter turnout just as easily be 'they don't care about trans rights/abortion/the environment/Ukraine/other issues'?" My answer to that would be, "Possibly, but I think not very likely." At this point in time, it's Gaza and domestic protests against Israel's genocidal campaign that have captured the attention of the government and the media. I don't expect that to change between now and November. Anyway, would I change my calculus about voting blue no matter who if I lived in a purple state and/or district? Perhaps. But I don't, so I'm going to vote as strategically as I possibly can, then get back to work helping to organize and facilitate direct action. e: these circumstances are, of course, hardly peculiar to me or Californians in general. I would hazard a guess that most American posters on these forums live in either deep blue or deep red states, since, shock of shocks, most Americans live in one of those two types of states. I agree with those who see their votes as a tool, but I think people should use that tool strategically. It's one tool out of many that we all have at our disposal, so you may as well use it, and then get back to using the other (arguably more effective) tools in your belt as well. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:14 on May 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
My state is reliably blue, so my presidential vote won't matter (bet my county goes to trump though, wealthy folks and rednecks co-habitating*). But I won't hide behind that, I wouldn't vote for Biden now regardless of my state. What if everybody wrote-in "gaza" for their presidential vote? Wonder if that would register. Though I'm not sure if every state lets you do that...? I know my rep voted yea on the "conflate anti-zionism with anti-semitism" bill so they're out too. Waiting to see how my senators vote (AFAIK this hasn't occurred in the senate yet). *darkly funny, my (honestly very nice place to live) wealthy people & laborer county has traditionally gone Trump, while the nearby largely redneck (laudatory) county hasn't. Make of that what you will. BRJurgis fucked around with this message at 20:31 on May 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 20:27
|
|
|
If you could get a majority to do an invalid write-in as a protest vote, then what's stopping you from getting that same majority to write in an actual candidate who represents their views? Better yet, get that majority to control the primaries and pick your nominee and then you don't need a write-in campaign. To try to give a real answer - as far as I can tell, most states require write-in candidates to be registered in order to be eligible to win. If you write in something that isn't a valid candidate I doubt it is even recorded, but even if it's recorded I really doubt the results for invalid candidates would be published in any official way. Elections staff might notice and say something, though. e: hooman posted:EDIT: Do you think the next Republican will be better than Trump? Do you think they will do more or less damage than Trump? I don't personally see Trump's views as an outlier, I see him as the new normal, and at least he's dumb, vain, lazy and self-sabotaging. I'd prefer him over someone with all the same vile poo poo but semi-competent. The problem is that once Trump gets in, he's going to gently caress up what remains of fair elections so badly that you might not have a chance to avoid the next guy. I think it's pretty much an existential struggle that the Republicans not be allowed to win the Presidency unless and until they have returned to being a party that actually cares about something resembling a functional government. It seems more likely that they will decline into no longer being nationally viable and get replaced by something else, but either way they can't be allowed to have another crack at implementing their current vision. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 21:58 on May 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:If you could get a majority to do an invalid write-in as a protest vote, then what's stopping you from getting that same majority to write in an actual candidate who represents their views? Better yet, get that majority to control the primaries and pick your nominee and then you don't need a write-in campaign. Thanks for the response. I hope the above is meant sincerely, as you must understand the logistics and obstacles behind having a candidate to vote for. And for my part the absolute lack of faith that such a circumstance would translate to significant change.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 22:23
|
|
|
I do mean it sincerely. Organizing a bunch of people to go vote and all write in the same thing is difficult. If you can get them to do it just to send a protest that will likely not be noticed or cared about, why wouldn't you be able to get them to do it to vote for an actual candidate - something which has a much greater chance of making an actual difference? On the other hand, if you have literally no confidence that actually electing a candidate you chose yourself would lead to significant change, why would you think that any of the candidates you didn't choose would care in the slightest about a protest vote? Like, these are people who already don't agree with you - we can assume that, or you'd consider voting for them. You don't have the power to threaten their hold on office - we can assume that, because you're throwing your vote away instead of even trying. Why should they care at all what you think? Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 22:35 on May 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 22:32
|
|
|
hooman posted:EDIT: Do you think the next Republican will be better than Trump? Do you think they will do more or less damage than Trump? I don't personally see Trump's views as an outlier, I see him as the new normal, and at least he's dumb, vain, lazy and self-sabotaging. I'd prefer him over someone with all the same vile poo poo but semi-competent. But here's the thing, it's not just Trump taking office. His administration, his cabinet, his officers, his judges, will be chosen from the pool of "new normal" Republicans. Are they going to be as dumb, vain, lazy, and self-sabotaging as Trump? Are you willing to bet the lives others on that? (Well, I take it that you are willing. You said so in a previous post.)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 23:16
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:I do mean it sincerely. Organizing a bunch of people to go vote and all write in the same thing is difficult. If you can get them to do it just to send a protest that will likely not be noticed or cared about, why wouldn't you be able to get them to do it to vote for an actual candidate - something which has a much greater chance of making an actual difference? Again, where is this candidate? Theoretically I have the If you can understand why I can't, why they wouldn't win, and why it wouldn't effect enough change, you have understood me (for me personally, but also on a more objective "continuation of an Earth that is conducive to life as we know it") For your second paragraph, yes we've already lost. It isn't because of me choosing not to vote, though, seriously To be more clear towards my response to paragraph #2, "what if we've already lost" is an important message I'm trying to convey. How could we responsibly go into the future without seeing things as they are? We need to recognize the failure of this if we could ever possibly reform it. BRJurgis fucked around with this message at 23:30 on May 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2024 23:21
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:The problem is that once Trump gets in, he's going to gently caress up what remains of fair elections so badly that you might not have a chance to avoid the next guy. I think it's pretty much an existential struggle that the Republicans not be allowed to win the Presidency unless and until they have returned to being a party that actually cares about something resembling a functional government. It seems more likely that they will decline into no longer being nationally viable and get replaced by something else, but either way they can't be allowed to have another crack at implementing their current vision. I don't personally believe that voting will meaningfully cease to exist if Trump becomes president again, which hopefully contextualises this discussion better. The Republicans haven't shown any tendency towards becoming more moderate, especially when Democrats (like Joe Biden) have taken the "Moderate Republican" position on things like the border. They have become more extreme to try and outflank them on the right. Do you believe any of Trump's successors, should he lose this election, will be committed to a functional government, or be against overthrowing democracy? At least to me, if I believed that Republicans would try to entirely destroy the right to vote and democracy, I would want the dumbest, vainest, most self serving and facile of them (Trump) to be leading that charge, as it gives them the greatest chance to fail, and for the institutional response to prevent it succeeding.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 02:00
|
|
|
Trump is going to be in charge of the Republican party until he dies, regardless of whether or not he wins this year. It doesn't matter if the hypothetical competent fascists that we have never actually seen want to push him out, the voters want Trump. Desantis tried to push him out this year and it went nowhere. Trump losing doesn't let the hypothetical competent fascists step up and take over, it lets them embarrass themselves losing to Trump again while we get four more years of government doing things that are better than the things a Trump government would do. James Garfield fucked around with this message at 03:56 on May 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 03:53
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:Again, where is this candidate? Theoretically I have the Look, if you've already decided that in this nation of hundreds of millions of people, no one could possibly get into power who would be worthy of your vote, what am I supposed to do to talk you out of it - start naming names? All I'm saying is, if you think that there's no way that a bunch of people could get together a campaign to directly elect an official who could "effect enough change" (for whatever your definition of that is), I don't know what on earth you think those same people writing "gaza" in for President is going to accomplish. Obviously, I don't understand you, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. I don't feel like "what if we've already lost" is a complete message - just a question. What's your answer to it? I haven't really put any mental energy into finding one since I don't yet share your fatalism. hooman posted:I don't personally believe that voting will meaningfully cease to exist if Trump becomes president again, which hopefully contextualises this discussion better. Responding to the bolded - no, I said directly that I think it's more likely the GOP will cease to be a competitive national party than that they will decide to return to rational governance. I'm just allowing for the possibility to exist. I think the path forward is to drive them into the dust as much as possible. Once the Democratic primaries become the true contest for national office, third parties will gain relevance in the general election and we can hopefully get a worthy alternative to emerge. There are a lot of reforms that would make this easier like getting rid of first-past-the-post districts and reforming the Senate, but I can't really imagine how the necessary constitutional amendments could pass without a lot of realignment. e: It's all well and good for Trump to be leading the charge, but letting him win is still going to do far too much damage to just let it happen in hopes that this will somehow entrench incompetence as the standard for the GOP. Also, as you've observed right there, the Democrats are liable to respond to a GOP victory by conceding some policy points in an attempt to appeal to moderates. So, after your hypothetical Trump victory this year, you now have a new Democratic challenger who is even more right-wing than Biden as your alternative in 2028. How, exactly, have things gotten better? Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 05:49 on May 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 05:39
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Trump is going to be in charge of the Republican party until he dies, regardless of whether or not he wins this year. It doesn't matter if the hypothetical competent fascists that we have never actually seen want to push him out, the voters want Trump. Desantis tried to push him out this year and it went nowhere. I think this is wishful thinking. Trump hasn't kept control of the GOP through the sheer force of his personal charisma alone; he also needs to maintain the support of megadonors like Timothy Mellon and the Uihleins. If he loses again, I think there's a good chance that they pull the plug and put their money behind another slightly less messy fascist like JD Vance, or perhaps some techbro like Vivek, but you know, white. Eletriarnation posted:Look, if you've already decided that in this nation of hundreds of millions of people, no one could possibly get into power who would be worthy of your vote, what am I supposed to do to talk you out of it - start naming names? All I'm saying is, if you think that there's no way that a bunch of people could get together a campaign to directly elect an official who could "effect enough change" (for whatever your definition of that is), I don't know what on earth you think those same people writing "gaza" in for President is going to accomplish. Obviously, I don't understand you, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. I don't think that's a fair framing of BRJurgis' argument. The reason why no one who isn't a pro-genocide monster has a chance of getting into power in this country isn't that folks on the left refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. It's that the deck is pretty visibly stacked against an anti-genocide candidate even getting a major party nomination, much less being elected. It seems to me that your outrage should be aimed at the system that only produces nominees who could very possibly lose to Donald Trump, not the people who are tired of perpetuating that system. Majorian fucked around with this message at 06:04 on May 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 05:44
|
|
|
2016 was the only election I didn't vote in - I was camped at standing rock; I hitchhiked to and camped at the rnc and dnc earlier that summer. I was a Bernie guy. I was a bit accelerationist. A fully radicalized anarchist. I also read these forums so I'm not a totally oblivious rube. I am still radicalized, but I am also radically opposed to accelerationism. The lesson I've learned is that it burns the poorest, the most disenfranchised, first - and then burns upward from there. The key point is that there is an international fascist machine attempting to take the reigns of the US federal apparatus and that international fascist machine is very clearly pushing accelerationism and is lined up ready to take over the vacuum. The federal apparatus will not crumble, it will transform into a new even more monstrous machine. Biden, to me, represents the #occupy movement gaining significant influence of the dnc's platform. Pete '28 is the best possible future I can forsee. The best course to pursue. I will exert my limited influence thusly.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 05:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think that's a fair framing of BRJurgis' argument. The reason why no one who isn't a pro-genocide monster has a chance of getting into power in this country isn't that folks on the left refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. It's that the deck is pretty visibly stacked against an anti-genocide candidate even getting a major party nomination, much less being elected. It seems to me that your outrage should be aimed at the system that only produces nominees who could very possibly lose to Donald Trump, not the people who are tired of perpetuating that system. I'm not outraged, I'm just bewildered at the idea that a write-in campaign for an invalid candidate would accomplish anything where those same votes for a handpicked candidate wouldn't. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 06:45 on May 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 06:37
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:I'm not outraged, I'm just bewildered at the idea that a write-in campaign for an invalid candidate would accomplish anything where those same votes for a handpicked candidate wouldn't. I don't think the expectation is that such a campaign will inevitably produce a better outcome - just that business as usual only produces situations where only complete monsters are available as candidates, so we might as well try a hail mary and see if it works. If it does, awesome. If not, well, at least you're not participating in the same old ghoulish charade anymore. To quote a totally sane and not at all monstrous film character, "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" Personally I think putting one's vote behind a third-party candidate has a much better chance of bringing about change than a write-in campaign, but hey, what do I know. I thought the Greens had a chance of breaking the 5% mark in 2020 and lmao, nope. (and I don't even like the Greens!)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 07:04
|
|
|
A major problem with this whole debate in relation to American politics is that America deserves a better system that actually allows for realistic emergence of third parties organically in normal times. What America has is a system that almost mathematically guarantees two party dominance the majority of the time, with maybe an occasional sudden realignment where one of the parties fucks up so badly that a rising force is able to take its place on one side of the scales. The system as it stands means that when the general election is called and the two major parties have determined their candidates you have no realistic hope of making anyone but those two people president come election day. That's not fair or reasonable for a political system, and I suspect that the fact that isn't fair or reasonable colours the debate about how one should respond to it. Anyone who thinks the system is unfair and that they shouldn't have to vote for the lesser evil, I agree with you. But that doesn't change the fact that in America, on election day, the winner will be either the better or worse candidate (or the bad or worse candidate if you prefer that framing). And you have a right to abstain from that contest if you wish. But they don't care if you abstain, like the major fraction of the population that already abstains. In fact if you're not playing their game they want you to abstain, and the ones who most oppose the things you want want you to abstain the most. A lot of people are arguing that voting isn't much or isn't enough, and that's true. Voting isn't the most powerful thing you can do. But it's the most powerful thing you can do with your vote. There's only one other thing you can do with it, and that's throw it away.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 10:56
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:Thanks for the response. I hope the above is meant sincerely, as you must understand the logistics and obstacles behind having a candidate to vote for. And for my part the absolute lack of faith that such a circumstance would translate to significant change. A really common sentiment among leftward critics of the Dems, voting or non-voting, is that they feel the current options don't offer significant change from the norm. That's justified, but it's not like the paths to changing that are mysterious. The natural question is "What are past examples of Democrats who did bring significant change?" I can't speak for you, but given both prompted and unprompted responses to that same question from other posters, the two most common answers seem to overwhelmingly be "a plutocrat from two separate political dynasties with a solid history as a moderate", and "perhaps the most inside of Congressional insiders that has ever sat in the Oval Office." Neither of them were particularly attractive to those demanding radical reform; Johnson was even considered a representative of the more right-wing Dixiecrats when he got on the VP ticket. Certainly your cited standards wouldn't have allowed support for either. And, you know, it's not like either came to office having hidden their radical plans all along. They were still basically who they campaigned as. But, as is often pointed out today, the presidency is just one (big, necessary) piece. Their presidencies would have been far less impactful without the more important part: massive Democratic majorities in both sides of Congress, allowing big swings and dramatic policy pushes, even things that were devisive enough among the caucus and the electorate that they saw a lot more defectors than we're used to these days. Their successes didn't come from voters looking for a candidate to love every four years and going to vote if they did, but rather by those who hit at every level, at every time, and pushed even when others in the same party pushed back. That's an energy that still exists on the right and their engagement and turnout has carried them to great success beyond their numbers as an actual share of eligible voters, and the possibility of that strategy coming apart if the party turns on itself is one of their biggest threats right now. James Garfield posted:Trump is going to be in charge of the Republican party until he dies, regardless of whether or not he wins this year. It doesn't matter if the hypothetical competent fascists that we have never actually seen want to push him out, the voters want Trump. Desantis tried to push him out this year and it went nowhere. It's true enough that Republicans right now don't have a reason to regroup and change their views to pursue voters outside of the MAGA base. Why would they? They've managed to keep close every election through radicalization, and even if their core is old they've had enough to keep competitive until now. It takes big failures, over time, to make a party shift the values of its core constituents. That actually is the level at which the old way has to fail badly enough that the people most invested in it either reexamine their strategy or lose the confidence of their own suppporters. Republicans being marginalized for decades on the national level while massive Democratic majorities were the norm made them have to come up with the southern strategy. Democrats got into the Third Way approach when everyone assumed that Republicans had a permanent default lock on the White House and the old guard was perpetually losing. In exactly the same way that a razor thin Democratic majority isn't going to pass the radical legislation that a strong majority will, a Republican party that's constantly either in power or within a hair of grasping it isn't going to make radical changes in itself that a marginalized rump party will. And really if they're marginalized, that's fine too. For all the glib "You can't vote out fascists" quips, that's exactly what they did the last time, at least with domestic ones. America First and the like were holding rallies to keep the US from fighting Hitler right up until Pearl Harbor because it wasn't banned speech, but they didn't have the votes to keep the anti-Nazi majority from supplying all of his enemies and gearing for inevitable war.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 16:02
|
|
|
The 2016 primary for Bernie was the first election I could vote in. I am baffled that people who lived through that still think protest voting/not voting will tell the Democrats anything. It only ever encourages them to campaign towards people who vote consistently. Older, richer, whiter people. Hence Biden, not Ghist of Eugene Debs. Not to mention downticket races. I just had a kid. Living in a blue city (Dallas) in a red state- yeah, I want dems in charge because as much as they suck the school board won’t be empowering transphobia, US history teachers both sidesing the Civil War, preachers for sex ed, or a ton of other poo poo I had in my day. And I won’t be voting for Biden. Texas goes red regardless. I can’t stomach hitting that name. But I will still be voting for a bunch of dems. soviet elsa fucked around with this message at 16:26 on May 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:But they don't care if you abstain, like the major fraction of the population that already abstains. I don't think that's necessarily true. Would the Biden Administration be pausing weapons shipments to Israel or telling them they need to "get out of Gaza" if it weren't for a combination of "uncommitted" votes, terrible poll numbers (particularly among young voters), and campus protests? Obviously the weapons shipment pause is a very limited one, and talk is cheap (particularly when it comes from Tony Blinken), but I think we probably wouldn't even be seeing this amount of movement from Biden if they weren't concerned about turnout. \/\/\/good point, thanks for clarifying. Yeah, I don't put much stock in the U.S. system of government losing legitimacy if even more people abstain from voting than already do. I know that for some folks that I've spoken with IRL (and possibly some ITT, although I'll let them speak for themselves), it's less about stripping the government of legitimacy, and more that they are just absolutely fatigued by the whole charade.\/\/\/ Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:44 on May 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
There are two distinct arguments that are presented with regards to not voting. There's the idea that the entire government will lose legitimacy if you don't vote, and the idea that a party will chase the votes that are abstaining. I think that argument was directed at the former, although their post kind of blur's the line on the two ideas.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 17:27
|
|