Electoral Politics and Political Strategies

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Electoral Politics and Political Strategies

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Yes, they are obviously more responsible for Biden's victory and subsequent administration than if they had voted for Trump. They could have made a choice that obviously made Biden's victory less likely, they didn't make that choice, the way responsibility works here is obvious.

I don't know why but this just feels inherently undemocratic and complicating a simple action.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 19:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 15:29

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

Civilized Fishbot posted:

I really don't see how it could get any simpler. When you choose to vote one way, as opposed to another way, if it clearly changes what might happen in the future, then you're responsible for those changes.

When you vote for someone, yes. But when you start saying that if you decline to vote for one person over another, you�re responsible for those changes, that�s when it starts getting iffy with me, especially if there are other options at play. That�s where it feels in Democratic to me. You�re trying to whittle away at the options people can make

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 20:03

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Very bizarre claim, not sure what to make of it. I haven't said anyone should or shouldn't, much less can or can't, do anything at all. Just talking about how responsibility works.

That�s not how responsibility works here. If I feel that both candidates are lovely and do monstrous things, I�m not going to vote for either of them. If my goal is to not have monstrous things happen, then voting for monstrous people who will do monstrous things is not closer to getting my goal. Even if one does less monstrous things than the other, it is not closer to my goal especially when the lesser monster shows no sign of lessening their monstrous habits.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 20:22

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

Jethro posted:

Not voting for people who will do monstrous things also will not get you closer to your goal. Voting for people who won't do monstrous things when those people are not likely to be among the top two vote getters in a FPTP election also will not get you closer to your goal.

True, but also me not voting for them means that they can't use my vote to justify their actions.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

That is true - if your only moral barometer is "stop all monstrosities" then you have no power to make a morally meaningful choice, and no responsibility.

If "less monstrosities" is morally valuable, then your decision to vote for the less-monstrous candidate makes "less monstrosities" more likely than if you hadn't voted, and you're responsible for that.

In comparison, choosing not to vote makes "less monstrosities" less likely than if you'd voted for the less monstrous candidate, and you're responsible for that.

And if you vote for the more monstrous candidate, then you're making "more monstrosities" more likely than either of the above choices, and again you are responsible for that.

Less monstrosities in a vacuum is good, but like I said, if the one who is doing less evil is still committed to doing evil, then it's not morally valuable. Now if the person was sincere in their efforts of lessening evil and took actual steps towards that, I'd consider voting for them. But if they lack sincerity and the don't lessen the evil they're doing or increasing it, then I won't. If we keep voting for lovely people, we'll keep getting lovely outcomes. To adjust Malcolm X's quote about progress, we've been stabbed and one side is offering to go deeper and the other maybe wants to pull it out a centimeter while twisting it. The latter isn't actually making progress. Progress happens when the knife is fully out and the wound treated.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 20:50

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

GlyphGryph posted:

Can someone offer a single, coherent, reality based argument that not voting for Biden is better than voting for Biden?

It�s better to not vote for someone who supports a fascist genocidal apartheid state than to vote for someone who supports a fascist genocidal apartheid state.

# ¿ May 8, 2024 14:30

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

GlyphGryph posted:

Again, this is an assertion, not an argument. And even worse than Bugman's, since I think he actually was trying to answer the question with something more than a "because it is".

Better in what way? How? Why? There's no way for me to evaluate whether your statement is reality based or coherent because I have no way to determine what assumptions and values underly it, what mechanisms might lead to the actions in question better serving those values, whether the actual components are factual or reality based, or the scope in which the assertion would even apply.

I'm not expecting a perfect chain of logic and explanation with absolutely no gaps or play here, I'm willing to do work to fit in stuff that seems reasonable and offer what I can manage as a best possible reading, but you're giving me absolutely nothing to work with here.

I gave you a coherent and reality based argument. Because you don�t seem it to be so doesn�t mean that it isn�t. Genocide is bad and I�m not going to vote for someone who supports it.

If you want another one: I don�t believe that Joe Biden could protect us from fascists because he is supporting genocidal fascists.

# ¿ May 8, 2024 16:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 15:29

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

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

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Electoral Politics and Political Strategies