I don't believe that voting will save the world but neither will this comment, still I wrote it and still I vote.
post
You must vote out every Republican, then drag every Democrat kicking and screaming to the Left.
We cannot make progress if we're (barely at that) fighting the Republicans everytime they wanna hunt the homeless for sport or force transpeople to strip naked for perverts.
It's also funny how they pretend that the two actions are mutually exclusive, as if the rules of the universe won't allow you to firebomb Walmarts the minute you cast a vote. It's almost like discouraging people from voting is the actual purpose.
This is it. You can do harm reduction in voting for the least-worst feasible candidate, while organising/protesting on issues you disagree with them on.
E.g. In the UK, Labour is often poor on queer rights issues, but comparatively massively better than the tories/reform would be, not to mention economic and welfare policies. So I vote Labour, and attend pro-trans rights protests and criticise Labour and their stance on this issue.
Yuuup. Recently called out a post for discouraging voting, but the author was a mod so they removed my comment. Called them out on that and they removed that comment and banned me from the sub.
Firebombing a single building does nothing. You need coordinated violence with a massive group of people. Things that many tend to write off as "riots" like the 2020 BLM protests. My problem is never with voting, but it's with people who tell everyone to use every tool and refuse to use political violence. Why is it ok to refuse to use 1 tool, but not the other? Both are completely necessary to achieve the end goal desired. We should be seeing more Luigis and Tyler Robinsons at the very least every month instead of telling everyone that peaceful protests and a bit of community outreach is the only things worth doing outside of election time.
And yet, you aren’t out there assassinating CEOs.
Curious.
/s
Why is it ok to refuse to use 1 tool, but not the other?
I think it's okay that some of us want to exercise our rights but draw the line at breaking the law.
If you want to blow up (or even give up) your own life for the cause, that's your choice. It's not mine.
And some people draw the line at supporting candidates that don't support human rights or support Israel, yet that one gets you yelled at and told "we have to use every tool available".
The partisan purity tests on the left are a big part of the reason why Republicans keep winning general elections.
Republican policies are bad for anyone who isn't rich. Their party is literally promoting fascism at this point. But somehow the fact that a Democrat isn't 100% what you want them to be means you should stay at home and not vote?
Be advised that the thing Republican voters are best at is falling in line. They will vote for a candidate they actively hate ... as long as that candidate has an R next to their name on the ballot.
The time for purity tests is the primary. Vote for non-AIPAC, pro-trans candidates then. Cast your ballot for the person who best represents your interests. Actively campaign for them and convince everyone you meet to vote for them.
But in a general election, if you refuse to vote because you don't like the Democrat (with whom you agree on 80% of issues), you're ceding the choice of representative for your state or district to the people who will vote Republican no matter what. And I doubt you will agree with even half of that person's votes.
You might feel like you've done something valuable and righteous, but all you've really done on a practical level is make it easier for the right-wing candidate to win a majority.
Even if you're not enthusiastic about voting for the Democrat, you can feel good about voting against the Republican.
I haven't been excited about voting for a lot of people in my life, but I am still quite proud of the fact that my vote helped a dead man beat John Ashcroft for a seat in the Senate.
Also, even for those who only care about 1 issue (whether Gaza or Trans rights or something else), it’s important to have some sense of nuance on that issue and not frame it in completely black-and-white terms. Chances are that a given AIPAC Democrat candidate is less hostile to Palestinians than their Republican opponent, or that an anti-trans Democrat on the wrong side of trans sports and bathroom issues is running against a Republican that wants trans folk jailed or killed. The Democrats are far, far from perfect, but they are still better than the Republicans on every single issue.
Did BLM actually change things?
My problem is never with voting, but it's with people who tell everyone to use every tool and refuse to use political violence. Why is it ok to refuse to use 1 tool, but not the other?
Devil's advocate-- Trump is provoking the public so he could invoke the Insurrection Act and legitimise the use of violence to purge any opposition.
There has already been numerous instances of violations of constitution and civil rights, but where does the public draw the line? I don't know, but I think the test will be the midterms on whether or not Trump will rig it. Or, if not the midterms, wait in two years if he doesn't want to step down.
You can use the logic of "they're just waiting for us to get violent so they can oppress us harder" all the way to the camps.
Not saying you're necessarily wrong about the insurrection act but if he was really trying to do it he would whether someone really did it or not. I mean he's already been shot at. Hes got the false grounds to go for it.
Unfortunately you're batting for the other side. All they want to do is throw out any reason they can to keep the status quo of non violence so they can continue to steamroll forward. Because the secret is that they're fragile. It's not a majority of the population that's doing this, it's a very small minority with a slightly larger minority supporting it and a vast majority saying "well don't get too rowdy yet, that's what they want."
Trump wasn't even elected on the second term when he was shot at so he doesn't have the grounds to invoke the Insurrection Act. But now as the president, he can't use that prior incident. He's waiting for any excuses to invoke the act as incumbent president.
It's not a majority of the population that's doing this, it's a very small minority with a slightly larger minority supporting it and a vast majority saying "well don't get too rowdy yet, that's what they want."
Everyone seem to have forgotten about last year when people talked about raising arms in response to the brutal ICE abuse, and the government floated the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act. The government did tone down the raids and scapegoated Gregory Bovino, but in any case, are people really willing to be martyrs and raise arms next time around if it's brought up again?
I was banned from a certain "leftist" sub for arguing it's stupid to dismiss voting or dislike voting instead of whatever-else because election outcomes have very practical consequences for a lot of people in the here and now and you might need to start looking at Plan B's in the event your systemic revolution that gets rid of the US government and allows you to rebuild– a messy process that you've not elaborated on– doesn't happen.
Far as I'm concerned, it's proof some leftists are just as dumb and easily mislead as ultra conservatives; your rhetoric is indistinguishable from anti-voting memes that came right out of a Russian bot farm.
Agreed. Voters holding out for the perfect candidate infuriate me. The only “perfect” candidate is staring at you in the mirror. Outside of that, compromises are necessary.
There's a certain leftist opposition to structure in general.
I had a comrade who was actively trying to get out of jury duty because he has fair objections to the legal system. Others in our organization were encouraging him to wear communist pins and whatnot so he doesn't get selected.
But like... what if some reactionary takes your place on the jury? Is that preferable to you being selected and needing to briefly take part in a deeply flawed system that you believe should be overhauled? Shouldn't people who have dedicated their life to fixing these systems make it a point to operate within them in some capacity?
It's as if they are worried participating in the system in any way will somehow taint you.
Those subs are just propaganda tools for russian and chinese bots and propagandists - and the useful idiots. You cannot really tell any of them apart.
Sometimes it's that, sometimes it's the other person refusing to believe that actual activists exist
Someone actually did firebomb the local Walmart last night...
i regularly get flamed by asking my fellow so-called (internet) leftists one piercing question: "how?" i've been called a nazi, maga, etc. because i want people to actually consider how they would go about implementing their big ideas.
it's great to have big endgame ideas, it's important to have a direction. but if all you have are the big endgame ideas and nothing else, you are simply not a serious person and you have a lot of political literacy you need to work on. being terminally online and jockeying with nothing but ideas is not praxis, it's not even theory. it's just attention whoring for updoots and likes.
Reading this reminded me of a quote. I unfortunately can't remember for the life of me who said this, but it was something to the effect of: "I appreciate many leftist ideas. But, in my experience, if your only acceptable outcome is 'utopia', and your only acceptable timeline is 'immediately', then things aren't likely to go your way."
People like that are on the same political level as that one Nickelback song.
They love to go on about the French Revolution, yet never acknowledge that it immediately led to dictatorship.
Kinda seems like leftists spend a LOT of time thinking about how to avoid counter-revolutions but whatever
It's important to remember the famous song "everyone I don't like is literally hitler" by rusty cage and that it applies to a shocking number of people online
"Both sides are the same, you shouldn't bother voting"
People don't bother voting, the bad guys win, things get worse
"See? I was right!"
Does voting cause Americans some obscure form of pain or anguish?
I can see no other reason why not to vote.
There was a law a few years back that prevented giving water to people standing in line to vote. Lines in places where your vote matters can take hours. You also do not get time off work so you have to use a personal day or just get paid less that week.
The water law was specifically in Texas, not a federal law.
It's stupid how difficult some places make it to vote. Also, in a surprise turn off events, the military was specifically ordered to make sure everyone gets a "down day" to vote.
Probably because of the amount of stupid people in the military that will vote red. I hope it flips this year though.
A lot of us have been disenfranchised yet the rest of the world keeps parroting the oligarch shit about pulling ourselves up by the boot straps.
Americans aren't really allowed to take off work.
Just so people know because this is important, many states have laws requiring employers to allow time off to vote. Check your local laws. Some states even require that time to be paid.
A problem is that, actually, some are. It's the carrot on a stick problem allowing the problem to get much, much worse, at a rapid rate.
Like, the big stone door at the end of the tunnel is open, but closing, and there are only 10 people-spaces available. So, 1000 people fight each other to survive, rather than rushing through the door and ripping the spine out of the person closing the door.
"Oh, you have an issue with the door closing person? Maybe if you ran faster and beat more other people you wouldn't have an issue with it."
I'm not USian, but here are some assorted reasons why one might choose not to vote. I do not necessarily agree (or disagree) with any of them, and this is my attempt at a reasonably balanced analysis as a person who is not an expert in politics, but has read a lot of arguments in the comments.
-
Voting makes you complicit.
(Let's say for the sake of argument that it is a given that Democrats will continue aiding Israel's genocide and ethnic cleansing just as much as the Republicans, but will improve things for marginalised communities domestically.)
The argument here is that voting for a politician that will perpetuate a genocide makes you complicit in a genocide in a way that inaction does not. The counter-argument is that refusing to exercise what influence you have in the choice between make a choice between Palestinian genocide or Palestinian genocide and trans genocide makes you complicit in trans genocide. This is literally the kind of thing that the trolley problem thought experiment was made to explore. -
Voting for the lesser evil increases harm in the long run.
The argument here is that demonstrating a willingness to vote for the lesser evil - with no red lines whatsoever - incentivises Democrats to only ever be slightly less bad than the Republicans, whereas having red lines and allowing Democrats who cross them to lose will incentivise the Democratic party to change their policies. The counter-argument is that Dems haven't exactly demonstrated that they willing to adopt certain policies even when it would be demonstrably beneficial to their election prospects, and so the pragmatic thing to do is to delay harm for as long as possible to give a better chance that non-electoral politics will shift in the interim. The counter-counter-argument is that such a shift will not occur while that harm is being delayed, which leads us on to... -
Accelerationism.
(Yes, I'm aware that what I'm about to write isn't the original meaning of accelerationism. Don't @ me.)
The argument here is electoral politics either can never progress toward socialism/anarchism/your-flavour-of-leftism (if you're a leftist), or even that it is no longer even capable of halting a descent into fascism (if you're a pessimistic liberal), and so we should simply allow shit to get fucked so that a critical mass of people have it bad enough to do some revolution and/or non-voting-based direct action about it. The counter-arguments here include, but are not limited to: a) well, that's just like, you're opinion, man; b) that's an awfully big gamble to take when there's no guarantee that what will come after will be better; and c) you should prioritise the lives of people that currently exist, now, rather than those of hypothetical future people, and immediate harm reduction is of more benefit to those people specifically.
In case any one cares, I'm English. My position on voting is that I may vote in an election where the Greens or possibly the Lib Dems stand a chance of winning, but otherwise I spoil my ballot. Yes, I'm aware that the Lib Dems are shitlibs. Still better than Labour. I will never vote Labour for as long as it remains transphobic or as long as the likes of Luke Akehurst remain in the party.
This is literally the kind of thing that the trolley problem thought experiment was made to explore
no, it's not. the trolley problem is a series of questions that help you to explore your own morality and understand your tendency (consequentialism or deontology or divine command theory, etc) and how far you're willing to stick to your beliefs.
there are no correct answers to the trolley problem.
A runaway trolley is on course to kill five people, but if you pull a lever it will be diverted to a track where it will kill only one person. Should you pull the lever? Does that make you a murderer?
You: There is no correct answer to this.
A politician who will commit multiple genocides is fighting an election against a politician who will commit one genocide. Should you vote for latter politician? Does that make you complicit in genocide?
You: This is obviously completely different from a trolley problem, and consequentialist and deontological ethics are not relevant in this situation.
there is no correct answer. it depends on which ethical system you prefer. and in fact, the same reasoning someone would use to make their choice in the trolley problem is, hopefully, the same method they'd use in politics. and, to that end, deontologists never pull the lever.
voting for genocide is wrong
there is no correct answer. it depends on which ethical system you prefer. and in fact, the same reasoning someone would use to make their choice in the trolley problem is, hopefully, the same method they’d use in politics.
Literally the point that I was making in my original comment.
voting for genocide is wrong
If you're a deontologist. Whereas a consequentialist would argue that allowing more genocide to occur when you could have voted for less genocide is wrong. And, as we've established, neither position is objectively the correct one. It depends on you as a person. And let's not even get into virtue ethics.
great. it seems like you understand that the trolley analogy doesn't have a single answer
and if you are attacking deontology, you are going to need to overcome all the justifications that deontologists (who make up a plurality of professional philosophers) would proffer.
so you can decide if the right thing for yourself to do is to vote for small genocide or to vote "against big genocide" (ifthe option offered is voting for small genocide) but you can't decide for others.
I'm not attacking deontology. Or consequentialism.
I'm a bit confused as to why we're arguing when you haven't actually said anything I disagree with since your first response, so I am going to guess that what has happened here is that because I formatted my original comment as "here is the argument for why voting is bad", "here is the counter-argument for why it isn't", it comes across as me thinking that the counter-argument is a refutation. That's not my position. I was not trying to state a position. I was merely trying to put forward my analysis of why there is debate by offering the arguments I commonly see both for and against, and I put the "against voting" arguments first because that most directly answers the question I was responding to.
I think we both agree that there is no correct answer to the trolley problem beyond what is correct to you personally, and I think we both agree that there is no correct answer as to whether you should vote beyond what is correct to you personally. That is why I think the trolley problem is relevant.
FWIW I think that my "I will not vote for Labour" stance demonstrates that I at least lean more toward the deontological position (in this case, at least), but in truth I couldn't honestly tell you that I've come to a firm moral decision. If the Tories and Reform have some fresh new lunatics in charge come the next election I may well be scared enough to change my mind.
The counter-counter-argument is that such a shift will not occur while that harm is being delayed, which leads us on to…
- Accelerationism.
I agree with what you said, up until this point. Non-electoral strategies are not harmed by voting because of accelerationist reasons, but because the messaging becomes muddled.
We have these two horrible, awful parties no one really likes, politics is increasingly driven by "negative partisanship," just a question of which party you hate more, and then everyone on the other side is assumed to be fully on board with the worst aspects of their side, when in reality almost everyone is following this same "lesser evil" logic, and it's really just a question of which party's faults they're more aware and conscious of. One of the biggest advantages to non-electoral strategies is that you have the opportunity to distance yourself from that and define what you actually stand for and don't stand for yourself. Someone who (correctly) sees someone like Joe Biden as a slimeball, could be more receptive to leftist ideas if they're decoupled from him.
Now, you take a protest, a union, whatever, and it takes an official stance endorsing a politician, now you're gonna be defined by that politicians words and actions, and unless it's someone you can really trust and stand by, you're right back to square one.
Point is, accelerationism is stupid and doesn't work, and I can't say that no one believes it, but I certainly don't (although people often assume that it's what I believe despite everything I say to the contrary). We can look at history and see very long periods of time when things were horrible for a lot of people and they weren't able to change things just by really really wanting them to, because they lacked power and organization. It can also just lead to the left straight up getting exterminated, as has happened many times in history, like Nazi Germany, or Iran under the Shah, or the mass killings in Indonesia under Suharto. Sometimes, the bad guys just win.
Imo, anyone who actually believes in accelerationism is a fool who doesn't read theory or study history, but it mostly just exists as an insult or accusation, rather than being something people actually believe.
Several reasons - People are lazy AF, maybe a bit "soft disenfranchised" in terms of not preceiving that they have credible information, and also there are active demoralization campaigns going on.
All those are reasons but none are valid excuses. Get off your ass and vote. Many places allow you to vote early. Federal law requires your employer to give you time off to vote.
No excuses... inform yourself and vote.
Its okay, they didn't vote either.
If you think voting is useless, I gotta ask then why do so many politicians try to surpress it?
As a black person, if voting is useless, then why did Jim Crow era South come up with millions of ways to stop Black people from voting? Why do d still have systems set in place to make voting for minorities harder, like laws about former felons not being able to vote?
If you're a minority (race and gender, fuck even poor white men) your ancestors didn't fight and die for voting rights just for you to sit here and go "oh it doesn't really do anything"
Had a very long argument on here with some "leftist" several months back where they were trying to argue voting does nothing and makes you complicit with the genocide in Gaza, but during the argument they conceded that republicans had a much more extreme on Gaza as well as were doing worse things to citizens than any democrat, and that voting doesn't stop you from doing any other kind of activists, but they still just doubled down on "voting bad"
Genuinely insane
They boil down to:
- Paid trolls
- Genuinely mentally ill people whose decision making centers are broken
Either way the solution is not to engage with them in anyway. You will not convince them to be reasonable and your energy is better spent elsewhere.
I knew a guy who daily stared into the sun for a few seconds.
He claimed to vote and tried to get me not to. I think he was either a secret Nazi or a secret superalcoholic or both.
Or ai bots that have lost the plot in the argument
Damn AI bots taking away jobs from paid trolls
People on Lemmy too. Just hop on over to !latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world and there’s the same sentiment.
Come to lemmy where /c/Conservative is for anarchists, and /c/LateStageCapitalism is for conservatives pretending to be centrists.
That community is full of tankies whose literal job it is to mind fuck you into not voting. They ban anyone that calls them out.
Yeah, called out a suspicious account posting that type of content and got banned lol. Account was made a year ago, but had zero activity, not even 1 upvote or downvote, until 3 months ago when it suddenly started posting “voting doesn’t work” type content just as the midterms are coming up. Hmmm 🤔.
Then there’s accounts named shit like ConcernedCitizen or AngryAmerican posting tankie shit. I could take a guess what country they’re probably posting from and it def ain’t US.
It's because most of the people there are from countries that do not declare themselves a democracy.
"Late stage capitalism" is a red flag for bullshit - tankie Nostradamuses with fake intellectualism and phony "stages".
The whole "everyone is 12" extends to things like this btw, if voting meant nothing, why is there a constant concerted effort of making voting particularly difficult? Are the politicians bored? Or is there something to a vote we're not seeing that they do? Of course you don't think those things you're 12.
Illusion of choice and controlled opposition.
They have delivered NOTHING since the neoliberals infected the party. They are leadership and no one will replace them. I won't keep listing all the ways that the leadership has stated and shown how they aren't going to fix any of this. They will just make the "Jack Smith" rematch and "that will get trump this time"!
We will watch trump (if he is still alive) either never show up or pleas the fifth. We will watch the clips and get excited for a year and a half and then, election time!
It will be narrow margins, we CAN'T have another maga in there, better keep voting blue and NOT progressives because they are "unelectable". Better keep appealing to the right, THAT WILL DELIVER FOR THE WORKING CLASS SOMEDAY
Experts already agree that we are in fascism. Please look into how many people vote out of fascism
When in the 40 years of this will be enough for people to see?
And your solution is…?
I'm not sure what their opinion is, but:
Warfare against the private property owning class that rapes children and funds genocidal imperialist wars.
Revolution of course. How that is accomplished is debatable and would be best if it was something like a massive general strike.
We are in a horrible place. DOGE compromised every aspect of our federal government's information security and data infrastructure. They invaded it, infected it with their AIs, and copied it onto servers. There is no getting that back.
State governments are still effective and people can still have a voice there. Wherever we go from here, it can't be the status quo. We are in Thomas Paine and pre-revolution times right now.
There are concentration camps right now, treason, and we are dismantling the ICC.
Incremental voting while shifting right has been as effective as believing in trickle down economics.
We need a party that shares the same basic principle as the New Deal Democrats. Neoliberals CANT be that because they abandoned the whole idea of pre distribution policies (shaping the labor market itself through minimum wages, union rights, public works, protective tariffs, and financial regulation. The neoliberal turn replaced that with "redistribution" — letting the market run its course and then compensating the losers via tax-and-transfer tools like the Earned Income Tax Credit)
That's the principle that can get us stuff incrementally
The smart people are organizing in their local communities, not taking cellphones or other electronics to meetings. Meeting in basements or places with few to no windows. They're aiding each other financially, emotionally, and morally. They're arming up and practicing on the down low. If someone talks about their efforts online looking for more, it's probably a honey pot.
As Eminem once put it, "Talk is cheap, motherfucker, if you're feeling frogish, leap."
To anti-quote Carlin, if voting didn't do anything, they wouldn't be trying so hard to stop us from doing it.
Vote-suppression micro-targeting is more effective and harder to differentiate than traditional negative or positive messaging around candidates. They particularly target minorities who they know are unlikely to be swayed to one side, so the most effective strategy is to convince them not to vote. They often rely on the idea that not voting will "send a message" to those in power. In reality, it just makes the targeted demographics appear unreachable.
A team led by a researcher at the University of Wisconsin–Madison recruited more than 10,000 people across the United States — a group representative of the country’s voting population — to install an app that captured every ad they viewed for the six weeks leading up to the November election in 2016.
The study participants who saw the ads with vote-suppressing messages on Facebook were 1.9 percent less likely to actually vote in the election than people who did not see the ads...
“In fact, those minority users got the vote-suppression messages nearly 10 times more often than white people in white-majority counties in non-battleground states,” says Young Mie Kim, UW–Madison professor of journalism and mass communication and the lead author of the study...
While a 1.9 percent shift in the behavior of some voters is small, the researchers say, so were the margins of victory in many states in 2016. And, compared to white voters in white-majority counties in non-battleground states, nonwhites in nonwhite-majority counties in states with tight presidential races were about 14 percent less likely to vote. Extrapolated across the country for the 2016 election, the effect of the ads may have kept about 4.7 million people from voting.
Even a good politician whose goal is to help people can't help people if they don't have any power. That means winning elections. If one group votes at 2x the rate of another group, then enacting policy that pleases that group is 2x as effective at retaining the power needed to help all of the people when you can. That's why the groups with the highest voting rates are held as sacred across parties. You can never enact policy changes that will negatively impact them because you will lose power.
Then add in what we learned from Cambridge Analytica, and you realize just how targeted these political advertisements are. They're running the numbers and targeting not just groups, but specific people they know are more likely to be brainwashed. It's sick. And it's working.
These people are the modern versions of flat earthers. Except, in voter suppression, even if you show them a spycamera full of bigwigs doing the ray liotta laugh and literally talking about this technique, they aren't gonna believe you. It's actually a smart strategy that works really well on mildly to very dumb people with a lot of pride that care in a cynical world.
I take it back, this isn't flat earthers, it's the people that believe their messiah is coming back (soon!). The time passes, you've fucked your dad and bought a thousand dollars of saltine crackers. Yet, no results other that something you can pretend you affected, exactly like superstitious people.
It's a passive take on agency.
Damn whoever convinced people to do this is pretty scary.
Also kinda feels like calling your shot. It's mindgames: "don't move, I'm going to stab you" stabs you "I told you I was going to stab you, good slave."
I forgot the term for when people get off on totally giving up. Is it fatalism?
Whatever. Either way, these people are dumb as hell. They can do what they want, but they aren't gonna do anything, exactly as they're told.
Know what not voting accomplishes? Not voting; it accomplishes you not voting Lmaoo
There are discrete opportunities to firebomb walmarts and I support each instance

top 98 comments