|
Does Voting Matter This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
91 | 28.44% |
| No |
|
133 | 41.56% |
| Jeb |
|
59 | 18.44% |
| Bernie |
|
37 | 11.56% |
| Total: | 320 votes | ||
|
icantfindaname posted:If it did they'd make it illegal OP If it did they'd try to suppress it
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 07:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:i think if voting didnt matter people wouldnt try so hard to stop you doing it This and also, if voting doesn't matter what are the alternatives? Nihilism, revolution...?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 07:41
|
|
|
Someone stopping you from voting tells you that that person wants you to be irrelevant, but that act does not necessarily mean that you have power or influence; it just means they want to be absolutely sure that you don’t. That kind of dynamic (oppressing the already vulnerable and powerless) happens all over the drat place in the US so this should sound familiar. Like, to use a dumb comparison Google doesn’t buy up and smother a million startup companies because they truly fear that those startups could become the next google or whatever, they do it because gently caress it why not, might as well be sure. Republicans don’t repress your vote because they truly fear you ousting their systems of power by voting for the dems, they do it because gently caress you why not, might as well be sure. And the democrats don’t treat it as an existential threat because they think they can win anyways without having to get dramatic. So I personally don’t find “voter suppression exists” to be very relevant to this; it tells us nothing about what actually happens when/if you vote, which to me is sorta the whole topic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 08:49
|
|
|
I'd say that you should base your decision on if voting matters on whether or not voting successfully carries out the collective will of the nation. Studies suggest that it does not. So what does voting accomplish? Well, in my unscientific opinion: - Legitimizes the current system - Decides who gets the attention of the interest groups and lobbyists (and by extension their favors) - Decides how competent the states actions will be - Decides which party will be more resistant to futile attempts to redirect the party by younger, less cynical representatives If you want the current status quo to be competent, then voting is a no-brainer. Personally, as a leftist, I would prefer the state with its current, half-century old goals and history of intent to be stunningly incompetent; I brought this up a lot during the election, Trump was stunningly bad at As for lobbyist funds, I'm not particularly interested in who gets what turn order at pedo islands and who gets to have three houses. Admittedly, I have significantly less faith in anyone redirecting the Democratic Party away from its trajectory after the last primaries. With a catastrophic plague, a candidate adored by everyone under 40, who ran on an explicitly healthcare-related message, and a field of the worst trash the centrists could dredge up, after a humiliating failure from the central figure of third-wayism....the octogenarian moderates still came out in swarms to gently caress over their kids and nominate a sex pest (albeit with some coordinated nudging between the candidates, press, and former president). I dont expect a better result now that centrists are back in governance. So yeah, thats my feelings. Between these elections and the pasokification of the european centrists, I'm pretty pessimistic about western democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 09:12
|
|
|
Cloaked posted:Someone stopping you from voting tells you that that person wants you to be irrelevant, but that act does not necessarily mean that you have power or influence; it just means they want to be absolutely sure that you don’t. That kind of dynamic (oppressing the already vulnerable and powerless) happens all over the drat place in the US so this should sound familiar. I don't know how much I really buy this with how obsessed both the generic republicans and especially the far right are with their 'losing the demographic' war stuff. Obviously 'because gently caress you' is a part of it, but suggesting that they don't perceive an urgency there really flies counter to, like, the entirety of right wing media which is very much fixated on the idea that white majority culture is under attack and must be urgently defended and is weak and in danger of failing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 09:19
|
|
|
I'd posit that voter suppression is the gop version of access to healthcare. A lot of sturm und drang to keep the partisans happy and very little to show for it. Obviously they're happy with whatever wins they can get, but the current system is working just fine for them so it's mostly just for show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 10:21
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:This and also, if voting doesn't matter what are the alternatives? Nihilism, revolution...? None of those matter either. Nothing you do, as an individual, matters. Societies are statistical flows of masses, and we, as atoms, are caught up inexorably in the flow. I think it's important to separate your action as an individual, versus the aggregate actions of many individuals. Does your vote matter? No. You can do whatever you feel like - up to and including agitating for violent revolution, or seceding from society to become some kind of ascetic hermit. But do the votes of millions of people matter? Very much!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
e: forget it. it's not worth trying to have a good faith discussion when the only response to criticisms of a corrupt system is performative emotional outrage
Lib and let die fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
Voting doesn't matter but neither does posting and you do that. If you're not voting in order to own the libs, consider that while they get annoyed with you and call you a baby if you don't vote, they get white-hot mad if you vote third party. They kinda enjoy sneering at people who are 'too stupid' to vote and it lets them rationalize their losses away as the fault of the lazy and stupid hoi polloi who are too dumb to figure out voting, but man oh man do they hate third-party votes because those come from people who are capable of voting and affirmatively took away a vote that they believe is theirs by divine right. It's even funnier if the third party votes exceed the difference between the two major party candidates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 15:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Voting doesn't matter but neither does posting and you do that. I like how you say "if you're not voting to own the libs.." followed by gloating about how hard you're owning the libs by voting third party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
I've completely lost faith in electoralism at anything beyond the local levels (where the margins can get slim enough that my single vote can be very important...if there's a candidate doing stuff I support) but I don't mean that as a nihilistic take at all; rather that getting involved locally in some capacity be it activism, volunteering, etc, is much more meaningful than a single vote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
I don't think the Democratic Party are the good guys or whatever. I think there are three major interlinked issues in the US: White supremacy, wealth, and climate change that I do not trust the Democratic Party to significantly change. I am really sympathetic to frustration of the two party system. But I am a trans person who teaches trans kids. The Republican Party is essentially a party trying to not just limit the rights of my kids and myself, but essentially present us as non existent. This for me doesn't feel like a wedge issue. It feels like there is one group who has people willing to be my allies and there are some people who want to obliterate children I love. I think there are lots of issues like this because I think when people talk about the difference between the Republican and Democratic Party, people correctly identify that neither party is particularly an anti-Capitalist force and I would include Bernie Sanders or AOC in that statement. But the differences between the parties do matter and can be important to people. So I dunno maybe consider why people are mad if you feel that you are refusing to take part in a collectivist action to stop things they are scared of or to get things they desperately want and you are not doing so for reasons that often sound incredibly abstract. sean10mm posted:I like how you say "if you're not voting to own the libs.." followed by gloating about how hard you're owning the libs by voting third party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:No. Whenever someone posts some drivel like this I always have to ask... at what point in the past were things better than today? The answer is always revealing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
Srice posted:I've completely lost faith in electoralism at anything beyond the local levels (where the margins can get slim enough that my single vote can be very important...if there's a candidate doing stuff I support) but I don't mean that as a nihilistic take at all; rather that getting involved locally in some capacity be it activism, volunteering, etc, is much more meaningful than a single vote. I spend my time now helping at food banks and free ged classes. I've felt like I've done more in that than anything I've done in the past, even helping Doug Jones win that special election awhiles back (which I don't regret, mind you, because Moore is a loving creep). So I guess help out your community at the local level
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
Cloaked posted:And the democrats don’t treat it as an existential threat because they think they can win anyways without having to get dramatic. To add on to this, they don't treat it as an existential threat because to them, it isn't. Most federal level politicians don't have the same needs and concerns as their constituents. For you it could be a matter of life and death, but for them it just means missing out on a job they wanted. This ends up contributing to the feeling that voting doesn't matter, because you have to vote for someone who doesn't respond to the same pressures as you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 16:39
|
|
|
Voting absolutely matters, but it's a collective action in which your individual vote is unlikely to turn the political tides all by itself. Which is why anyone pushing for real political change should be organizing and pushing to influence other people's votes (and other political behaviors), rather than just casting your own vote and then screaming endlessly about conspiracies when the candidate polling at 30% loses. Unless you control the military, the only way you're going to accomplish electoral change (no matter what method you use) is by building a mass movement in which a lot of people vote or protest or whatever else it takes. Political activism and organizing is certainly more important than casting your own individual vote. If you've swayed a hundred other people's voting decisions, it doesn't matter as much whether you personally vote. But if you're just going to embrace nihilism and declare that political change is utterly impossible and that there's no choice but to insist nothing matters, you're just being obnoxious, especially if you then devote your free time to screaming endlessly into the void on every site that tolerates talk about politics. If you really think that nothing matters and that there's no point in any kind of political involvement, then why the hell are you spending your last years on this doomed earth doomscrolling politics Twitter twenty-five hours a day instead of playing videogames or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
Srice posted:I've completely lost faith in electoralism at anything beyond the local levels (where the margins can get slim enough that my single vote can be very important...if there's a candidate doing stuff I support) but I don't mean that as a nihilistic take at all; rather that getting involved locally in some capacity be it activism, volunteering, etc, is much more meaningful than a single vote. Are you saying that these are either/or choices? You're wording seems to suggest they are ("rather that"). Voting and activism/volunteering/etc are not mutually exclusive. I'm guessing most people that post here do both (at least in D&D, I don't know about the broader SA community).
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:Local votes are definitely something that people probably should vote in as your vote really can matter for those. There are usually enough no-shows in the deepest red/blue states to easily swing them, even the presidential election. Like, in Florida the last presidential election had extremely high turnout at around 77% of registered voters. The election results in said deep red state were 51% v 47.86%, so there was plenty of wiggle room for the no-shows to swing the election heavily in favor of either party. One simple way to disenfranchise the opposition is to just convince enough of them that their vote won't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I don't know how much I really buy this with how obsessed both the generic republicans and especially the far right are with their 'losing the demographic' war stuff. Obviously 'because gently caress you' is a part of it, but suggesting that they don't perceive an urgency there really flies counter to, like, the entirety of right wing media which is very much fixated on the idea that white majority culture is under attack and must be urgently defended and is weak and in danger of failing. I probably could have phrased that better; it certainly is a useful thing for them to push in many ways like you mention, so they are definitely putting effort into it and are not doing it casually. But it costs them very little to do it, so it’s not like it requires them to be selective and only deploy it against people with power or anything like that. I think they’ll still be pushing this even if they succeed in all the things they are doing now and they’ll still be doing it if voting were to become entirely symbolic, because oppression is the point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
Yep, it always matters. The reason being is because even if you aren't able to progress forward, at least you don't lose already hard fought for ground, making you waste time having to re-fight the same battles time and time again. If more people had come out to support Gore in 2000, you'd have avoided a shitload of the problems that are facing you today. And more people in Afghanistan and Iraq would be alive. Same for Trump. 600,000+ dead, a failed insurrection, and the GOP getting tax cuts + 3 Supreme Court picks, not to mention a shitload of other court appointments, as well as a resurrected and emboldened white supremacist movement that isn't going to go away any time soon. "How bad could Trump be? Maybe he'll just suck and we'll get a real progressive in 2020!". That never, ever happens. Average people would prefer to run back to the mushy middle than chance a left wing candidate, especially when so much red meat is being fed to the right wing. So, only just having the senate means you're stuck because you've got at least 2 senators who are obstructing things in the name of decorum, if not outright trying to stop movement on bills because, at heart, they're really ok with the disenfranchisement of POC and minorities. Roberts has taken the final steps he's wanted to gut voting rights, something which likely wouldn't have been able to get anywhere near passing had Hillary chosen the 3 Supreme Court justices. Every single time people go "oh my vote doesn't count", it absolutely does, and you end up losing ground which was hard fought for, and might not be able to be won again. And the whole acceleration thing doesn't work because instead of people rising up to change the entire system, they're more likely to just get tired and worn out trying to hold on to what protections they do have currently, or attempt to get back what's been lost. And neither is a guarantee, especially when gerrymandering is being pushed in so many different states across the US, not to mention talk about just not certifying elections if they don't get the result they wanted. And the groups who are most likely to get it in the neck because of all of this are usually the most vulnerable, POC and Black communities. I don't want to sound like a conspiracist, but if ever I was to think that white people might be reacting against potential power shifts in politics on the left, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that just dropping out, saying voting doesn't matter, and spending a shitload of time reiterating this via social media as a way to ensure this doesn't happen isn't too much of a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Are you saying that these are either/or choices? You're wording seems to suggest they are ("rather that"). Voting and activism/volunteering/etc are not mutually exclusive. I'm guessing most people that post here do both (at least in D&D, I don't know about the broader SA community). Considering that I said I still find value in local elections (not all of the time mind you, but more often than not), I'm not framing it like that kind of choice at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
The Dark Project posted:3 Supreme Court picks Hey just want to point out that one of those supreme court picks was because the justice refused to retire under a Democratic president, despite her already advanced age, health scares, and significant external pressure to do so. People already voted to elect the person that could appoint a replacement for her, but he couldn't because of her own stupid individual decision. You absolutely cannot lay the blame for that on voters for not electing Clinton. And we're seeing the exact same thing happen again with Breyer. If a single individual can completely negate one of the biggest reasons for voting, that doesn't really help your argument. e: oh yeah and another one of those picks was because the same Democratic president didn't do anything to overcome the obstruction to filling that seat, because of a stubborn obsession with following the rules. That also can't entirely be blamed on voters. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jul 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Hey just want to point out that one of those supreme court picks was because the justice refused to retire under a Democratic president, despite her already advanced age, health scares, and significant external pressure to do so. People already voted to elect the person that could appoint a replacement for her, but he couldn't because of her own stupid individual decision. You absolutely cannot lay the blame for that on voters for not electing Clinton. And we're seeing the exact same thing happen again with Breyer. So, just to be clear: you're saying that voting would almost certainly have changed the outcome, and covered for Ginsburg's mistake, but it still doesn't matter because.... ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
The Dark Project posted:If more people had come out to support Gore in 2000, you'd have avoided a shitload of the problems that are facing you today. That election, which was the closest election in Presidential history, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt (to me, at least) that one individual vote will never matter on the national level. If you somehow had a few hundred people all gathered in the right county in Florida, and convinced them to vote the way you wanted, that would have mattered, but one vote will never make a material impact on a Presidential election. We just go through a whole bunch of psychological bullshit to convince ourselves that our individual votes matter for things like national elections when they truly do not. The arguments about voting in local elections at least are persuasive for there have been many many cases of local elections coming down to exactly one vote, but given how national elections work that will probably never be the case. The flip side of your vote mattering more in local elections is that local election winners have far less power than national election winners on large issues. Climate change policy will never be sufficiently advanced at the local level, to pick one example of where this strategy fails. So does voting matter? Not really, unless you vote in an election that is won by exactly one vote. Or I guess if you vote in one that ends up tied, that would count too because your vote changed the outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:So, just to be clear: you're saying that voting would almost certainly have changed the outcome, and covered for Ginsburg's mistake, but it still doesn't matter because.... ? No, I'm saying that voting didn't matter for the example that poster used for why voting matters. We can't peer into the alternate timeline and see what would have happened if Clinton had been elected. For all we know Ginsburg would have kept refusing to retire until she dropped dead (like what Breyer is doing right now). Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Jul 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:That election, which was the closest election in Presidential history, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt (to me, at least) that one individual vote will never matter on the national level. Every vote in the example election was an individual vote and the only reason your example was close was because the less favored candidate in the state had more people individually decide to vote for them. If a few hundred more people had individually chosen to vote the same way instead of sitting on their asses (or a few hundred chosen NOT to vote for the other side), that would have flipped the state - which is a thing that happens frequently enough in elections.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
If more had turned out for Gore in a lot of other locations, without it being so close, do you really think that the Republican's would have been able to push the narrative of Florida being the decider nearly as much? The Democratic party made a bunch of mistakes, especially in picking and choosing places to recount, rather than the entire state, but a clear narrative wasn't able to be made from the decisions from other states, thus muddying the waters, allowing a media push against Gore being the actual winner. They only work in their own interest, which is to make sure things into horse-races so they get more eyes on their networks to drive advertising. To only think votes count in states where recounts might swing it one way or another, ignores that optics and public will do matter in the construction of narratives. Yeah, your vote, even in the deepest blue of states, still matter on a national level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:If a few hundred more people had individually chosen to vote the same way Yes, thank you for agreeing with my post where I just said that if you had a few hundred people in the right county in Florida you could have flipped it but your one individual vote ain't doing poo poo. E: VVV Wow, today I learned my one individual vote is somehow a collective action and also I'm Ayn Rand. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jul 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:So does voting matter? Not really, unless you vote in an election that is won by exactly one vote. Or I guess if you vote in one that ends up tied, that would count too because your vote changed the outcome. So, you believe that collective action doesn't matter, and that the only real change comes from strong people taking powerful, individual action. Got any more "leftist" takes for us, Ms. Rand?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
George W. Bush won Florida in 2000 by like 537 (?) votes. Yes, it's not one vote, but man. What a catastrophe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:So, you believe that collective action doesn't matter, and that the only real change comes from strong people taking powerful, individual action. Can you at least try to respond to what people are actually saying instead of making poo poo up like this? That's two posts you've responded to with absolute nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Can you at least try to respond to what people are actually saying instead of making poo poo up like this? WampaLord posted that voting doesn't matter unless you are the single, deciding vote. You can read the quote, it's right there in my post. Pretty much all leftist ideology says that individual actions are important because they are part of larger collective actions - "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle" is the paramount example here. People exist in structures that drive individual actions, and it's the conflicts between those structures that define our society. Giving up a useful avenue for collective action is tantamount to political suicide in that kind of system. Libertarian and right-wing ideology, on the other hand, lionizes strong individual action: the masses of unimportant little people don't matter, only the galaxy-brained industrialist titan who makes the world bend to his will. John Galt wouldn't bother to vote, because that one little action doesn't matter, and he's got other ways to bend the world to his supergenius whim. WampaLord's post makes no sense through a Marxist lens, but it lines up perfectly with Ayn Rand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
The Dark Project posted:Yep, it always matters. The reason being is because even if you aren't able to progress forward, at least you don't lose already hard fought for ground, making you waste time having to re-fight the same battles time and time again. This is extremely conjecture on your part. Who's to say that Gore wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11? His boss in the 90s was lobbing missiles over Baghdad and the Democrat that succeeded his opponent would bomb Libya and Syria. Not to mention Afghanistan and Iraq were passed with Democratic blessings. Saying that harm would be mitigated by Gore getting elected isn't notably different than pretending Bush Sr. wouldn't have gotten rid of Glass-Steagall or passed the Crime Bill - who's to say? And resurrected white supremacist movements? What do you think the Tea Party was? What do you think Ferguson was about? A large amount of our politics is fait accompli as long as both parties are operating for capital. Choosing between the two certifies a fake complicity to these thoughts. On the local level, I feel that's halfway justified because it's possible for local effect from these decisions being felt, but on a national level, it's a rigged game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 17:54
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:WampaLord posted that voting doesn't matter unless you are the single, deciding vote. You can read the quote, it's right there in my post. That doesn't sound like a good faith interpretation of their entire post, and only a tenuous interpretation of the single line you cherry picked. They made it clear with the first sentence that they were talking about whether individual votes matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
e: forget it. it's not worth trying to have a good faith discussion when the only response to criticisms of a corrupt system is performative emotional outrage
Lib and let die fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Supermajority?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
e: forget it. it's not worth trying to have a good faith discussion when the only response to criticisms of a corrupt system is performative emotional outrage
Lib and let die fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
What's there to respond to? It was a bunch of rambly bullshit about not wanting people to judge you or you'll vote to run us off a cliff. The fact that you consider the difference between the smallest possible majority and a supermajority a matter of semantics was just the cherry on top.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:That doesn't sound like a good faith interpretation of their entire post, and only a tenuous interpretation of the single line you cherry picked. They made it clear with the first sentence that they were talking about whether individual votes matter. You're still missing the point. Coming into the "does voting matter" thread and jumping into the discussion talking only about voting as an individual action is a libertarian framing. Talking about it as collective action is a Marxist framing. Whichever of the two you pick, the answer to the thread title is inevitable once you've made that decision. If you're a libertarian who believes individual action by sufficiently-strong people is the only important thing, then voting doesn't matter - your mighty individual will is diluted by the sheep. If you're a Marxist who believes in collective action, then voting does matter, as long as the outcome of elections matters. We know that WampaLord does agree with that, because they believe that voting matters if you're the single vote to flip the whole thing. Of course, there are other ways to look at the whole situation - for example, someone could just view politics as a spectator sport, so voting doesn't matter to them personally as long as they get to yell at people about being wrong. In that case, voting would be a bad move, because then you'd be opening yourself to criticism by tying yourself to someone who might be wrong in the future. But, I'm going to post in good faith and assume that nobody here is that kind of pointless poo poo-stirrer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
e: forget it. it's not worth trying to have a good faith discussion when the only response to criticisms of a corrupt system is performative emotional outrage
Lib and let die fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 18:40
|
|