you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 52 points 5 months ago (69 children)

In Australia, you can vote for whoever you want first, and then you just have to make sure to put the better big party before the worst big party.

In America, your voting system is fucked, so you only get three options: Democrat, Republican, no preference. Abstaining is no preference. Abstaining and saying you want to burn down the system, is still no preference. You gotta make a good choice with your vote, so you can move on to making change on the ground with your hands and your feet and your voice. If you spend all day at your keyboard talking about how abstinence actually means whatever you want it to mean, then you're not making change, you're just getting mad.

  • source
  • hideshow 69 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (65 children)

    Abstaining is actually voting Republican, because of the voter demographics wherein Republicans have a dedicated chunk of zealots who will vote 100% of the time, and the Democrats having no such thing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 65 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    If you're a republican, abstaining is voting democrat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (43 children)

    and the Democrats having no such thing

    And instead of asking yourself why Democratic politicians are failing to inspire loyalty you blame the voters of a democracy?

    Hot take bud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    And maybe they would run more Progressive types and shift back Left but why should they bother right now?

    Because they're losing without us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Because you will never be happy anyway.

    How do you know?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    “Loyalty” to a party is not a good thing, for one.

    That's pretty rich coming from someone arguing we are morally obligated to vote for Democratic politicians. You can't get any more loyal than that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (30 children)

    Democracy means you have the freedom to elect a fascist government if you want to, and that's exactly what the American people have done. They exercised their freedom to choose Trump over Harris.

    American people don't get very many freedoms. They don't get the freedom to vote third party. They don't get the freedom to vote "neither of the above". They don't get the freedom to use the popular vote. But they do get the freedom to choose between the two big candidates, and that's the freedom they exercised.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (28 children)

    Democracy means you have the freedom to elect a fascist government if you want to,

    If that's all democracy is then it's benefits have been vastly overstated and I see no reason to protect it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Then tell me what benefits I'm supposed to enjoy. Because representation apparently isn't on the table.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    That's because you have to show up and show up in numbers. Too many on the left cry about not having a perfect candidate, don't show up, and then wonder why the Dems keep going right when the left doesn't show up. Then, surprise, they have no representation and throw away 20 years of progress.

    I don't care for Biden or trump, but I wasn't dumb enough not to see where we are right now before the vote was cast, so I showed up. So many stayed home that trump got elected with the popular vote despite not getting many more votes than he did last time.

    But hey, we didn't vote in the woman who had some bad policies and could be worked with because one bad policy was worth throwing everything away. So we got the country we collectively voted (or sat out) for

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

    That’s because you have to show up and show up in numbers.

    We do though. We were roughly a third of the voters in the 2020 Democratic primaries and that number has probably gone up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    You don’t show up in the general

    That would mean Biden won the 2020 general election without us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    I'm not following you. First you said we have to show up in numbers and I told you we do show up in numbers in the primary. Then you said we have to show up in the general election and I pointed out we did. Now you're saying that's not good enough. Either you're moving goalposts or you're doing a shit job of explaining yourself.

    Spell it out for me plainly. Tell me exactly what we would have had to do since 2008 in order to be represented.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago*

    As it is, I tire of listening to people complain about lack of representation when they choose not to vote for a viable candidate in the general when they had the opportunity to do so because they didn’t line up 100%.

    But as we've already established, we did vote for a viable candidate in the 2020 general election. Do you think we lined up with Biden 100% back in 2020? It really seems like you're the one missing the blindingly obvious answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (17 children)

    Okay, sure. You can let the fascists turn America into a monarchy and find out if a communist revolution is easier in a monarchy than a neoliberal capitalist democracy. That's clearly what you want to happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (16 children)

    find out if a communist revolution is easier in a monarchy than a neoliberal capitalist democracy

    I don't think it is but people like you set yourself in opposition to any radical change so long as you live in the comfort of a neoliberal capitalist democracy. See the problem?

    For example, I was in full favor of the rail strike back in 2022. Sure it's no revolution, but shutting down railways certainly would have been radical and led to some powerful concessions being made by oligarchs to American workers. And let me guess, you opposed the strike and supported Joe Biden, 44 Democratic senators and 36 Republican senators who decided to block it right?

    So it's not me who's choosing revolution under monarchy instead of neoliberal capitalist democracy.

    It's you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    The competition is back in power because Joe Biden sabotaged his own chances at re-election by making voters he was depending on furious with him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    What do you think voters should do about that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Depends on what kind of voters they are.

    If they stay home during the Democratic primaries they should show up to Democratic primaries to vote for a candidate who doesn't block strikes and doesn't support genocide.

    If they show up to Democratic primaries and vote for a candidate who doesn't block strikes and doesn't support genocide they should keep doing that.

    If they show up to the Democratic primaries and vote for candidates who block strikes and support genocide they should stop doing that and instead vote for a candidate who doesn't block strikes and doesn't support genocide.

    Tell me, do you plan on showing up to the Democratic primaries to vote for a candidate who doesn't block strikes and doesn't support genocide?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Do you understand cause and effect? I'm pointing out there were cracks in the supposed strategy to keep Trump out of office. Some of those cracks were instances where Joe Biden went against the sentiments of his own voters and sabotaged his own chances at reelection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    They went out of their way to express they were furious at AOC for her part in blocking the rail strike but not Joe Biden, the president of the United States. You don't think that's odd?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Nah, you're way off. I was actually pretty furious with AOC for voting to force an end to the strike.

    Your problem is, you see everyone else as an enemy, and assume all kinds of nonsense about them out of fear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    I was actually pretty furious with AOC for voting to force an end to the strike.

    Hold on.

    I haven't seen you say you were furious with Biden, Schumer or any Democratic Senators.

    This is the first time you say you were furious with a Democratic politician and you choose AOC. Seems suspicious you call out a progressive of all people. Where's your fury at Biden or the 44 Democratic senators who voted to block the rail strike?

    Comes off like you're happy to talk about being furious at a progressive because you don't care if people vote for her. But you want people to vote for strike blocking, genocide supporting trash like Biden so you conveniently never express your fury at him.

    Prove me wrong. Talk about how furious you are at Biden for blocking the rail strike. Talk about how furious you are at Schumer for blocking the rail strike.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [+] 3 points 5 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    i always found it weird when people say voting 3rd party is like not voting.

    is there no second round for the 2 most voted when the most voted doesn't reach 50%?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    It's important to note that both Bush and Trump won their initial election by the electoral college and lost the popular vote. So not only do you not have to get >50%, you don't even have to get a plurality of votes to win.

    Also, Roger Stone just happened to participate in both elections, and both had fuckery involved.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Not in America. If you vote third party, your vote doesn't get counted in the big race.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    Those votes do get counted. For example, we know that in 2024 Stein got 862,049 votes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I mean it doesn't have any bearing on electing the president

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    It's funny how well liberals like yourself understand the electoral college in this context. But then if I say a non-voter in a deep blue state didn't have any bearing on Trump getting elected and suddenly the principle matters.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Sometimes there is a Green option on the ballot, and in those cases, you should vote Green! The US Green Party has had a solid leftist platform for decades, including ending support for Israel, universal healthcare, free college, and more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment