you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 3 months ago (7 children)

The largest non-voting registered group in the 2024 election were those associated with neither party: independents and unaffiliated voters.

About a quarter of eligible voters aren't even registered on top of that.

"Both sides are bad" statements aren't necessarily driving partisans to not vote. They are, or can be however, an important message for those two big parties running the elections to hear from the people.

It's also, possibly one of the few talking points that forces acknowledgement that those independent, unaffiliated, and unregistered voters exist and whose interests might matter towards the outcome of policy and/or elections.

But yes, the interests that align with at least the GOP are furthered when votes are suppressed, that has been demonstrably true for decades.

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

    What if people are unaffiliated or unregistered because they believe both sides are bad?

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

    Then the posts aren't encouraging them to change any behavior. This premise only works if you have partisan voters deciding not to vote because of the Both-Sidesism.

    If it is the default case that a party already does not have the any votes of the largest mass of voters, then the parties should focus on gaining their support.

    But also: more libertarians protested the GOP over Both-Sidesism than leftists, so technically it still had a net benefit effect for Harris. Which further demonstrates how flawed the whole premise is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I don't really follow.

    We're not talking about well informed Lemmy users weighing the policies of candidates and deciding to abstain from voting because Gaza.

    We're talking about apathetic low information voters looking for an excuse not to get off the couch on polling day.

    "Both sides" is the classic strategy to keep these voters on the couch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    We're not talking about well informed Lemmy users weighing the policies of candidates and deciding to abstain from voting because Gaza.

    We're talking about apathetic low information voters looking for an excuse not to get off the couch on polling day.

    I guess, though a meme on Lemmy talking about social media posts would have me leaning to the former than the latter. I would wager, in fact, this meme is very strongly directed at Lemmy users who weigh policy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Wait are you legitimately claiming that both sides rhetoric doesn't discourage voter turn out? Do you have literally any evidence to support that claim?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    I don't know about 'discourage' since I was referring to protest 3rd party votes. But too many people didn't even know Biden dropped out to suggest the rhetoric was causing meaningful influence.

    Now, I do know that RFK and Chase Oliver together took more votes (~0.9%) than the Greens and PSL combined (~0.7%). So as far as protest votes over Both-Sideism likely went it probably didn't hurt Harris, and may have actually been a net gain for Harris.

    The entire combined third party vote would have had to pretty much 100% gone for Harris for the Democratic Party to have won the popular vote (which is still irrelevant because of the electoral college.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago

    Hard truth. Nobody gives a fuck about those voters. If they are mad and decide not to vote for whatever reason a decision will still be made without their input.

    Witholding your vote will not stop the process and will actively Help the worst elements of each party.

  • source
  • parent