I’d rather we stage a revolution and do away with the current electoral system in favor of one that allows more than two viable parties.
But, yeah, if you actually care about the outcome, but can’t find someone to vote for, there’s still a point in voting against the worst case.
Also, I believe that not caring about the outcome is a valid stance. If you genuinely don’t have any interest in it, don’t have a firm opinion about the candidates, or whatever, it’s fine to not vote. You’d essentially be flipping a coin anyway, so let the folks that care have their say instead.
It’s also fine to abstain as protest if you really want to, though I’d still say that voting against the candidates least aligned with your conscience would be a better overall move towards the outcome you’d actually prefer. Incremental change is still change, no matter how small the increments.
I would argue that not voting is ultimately the epitome of selfishness and a sign of unacknowledged privilege. Sure, you may be fine either way and the outcome may not matter to you, but I can guarantee it matters to other people in your life.
You do realize there are people that genuinely don’t care about presidential elections at all. They have no interest in politics, they just go about their lives and ignore anything like that.
Are they supposed to just flip that coin? I’ve known people that that is exactly how they would decide who to vote for if voting was mandatory. That seems a lot worse than abstaining.
Or are they supposed to vote for who they’re told to vote for? Who are they supposed to listen to?
Privilege or not, there are people like that, and I frankly would rather them stay home than risk them voting “for the joke of it”. And there were people that voted for trump for exactly that reason. They thought it would be hilarious.
That kind of person? If them not voting is selfish, I’m okay with that.
“You do realize there are people that genuinely don’t care about presidential elections at all. They have no interest in politics, they just go about their lives and ignore anything like that.“
And that’s exactly the kind of privilege I am talking about. If you have women in your life, than this election matters. Do you have people of color in your life? Than this election matters. LGBTQIA+? Economically disadvantaged? People with a life expectancy of more than 10 more years? Than this election matters.
Just because they don’t have an interest in politics doesn’t protect them from having culpability for what happens.
As for who they vote for, that’s on them. Pretty sure reading for like 15mins would indicate to most people how they should vote according to their own beliefs.
Democracy is never better for not having had the participation of as many as possible. Indeed, democracies biggest failures are always the result of too few taking part.
I agree with you that the current goal has to be stopping the erosion of human and civil rights. It’s more important in general, and to me personally, than my long term preferences regarding our government. I could wish it were otherwise, but as my mamaw used to say, if you wish in one hand and shit in the other, you’ll only have to wash one of them.
I think every election matters, not just presidential ones. Every election is a chance at change for whatever the person thinks is better.
I just don’t agree that voting should be mandatory, nor that everyone voting is better. An engaged, educated, and egalitarian population, I would absolutely want everyone voting. But we don’t have that. For me, if a person isn’t actually voting their conscience, and/or isn’t willing to read for fifteen minutes, it’s no better than rolling dice.
I don’t particularly care if they’re staying out of it from privilege, from apathy, from opposition to the system. It’s their choice.
Besides, not voting is voting. It’s saying “you guys decide”. A non voter is voting for other people to handle things. That’s a valid choice.
I don’t think we’re talking at cross purposes. I think we just disagree on whether disengagement is a “valid” choice.
“I just don’t agree that voting should be mandatory, nor that everyone voting is better. An engaged, educated, and egalitarian population“
Very Jeffersonian of you, but Jefferson was kind of a piece of shit when it came to anyone who wasn’t a property owning white man.
Twenty-one countries have compulsory voting. It’s not only doable, it’s not even hard. And it stops people from being able to claim distance from the act of self-governance that’s at the heart of democracy.
In the US in particular we’ve been brainwashed for almost a century that discussing politics is taboo, that being interested in politics is weird, and that not being involved is somehow some form of enlightened centerism. The only people that benefits are the people who can take advantage when most eligible people don’t cast ballots.
“Besides, not voting is voting. It’s saying “you guys decide”. A non voter is voting for other people to handle things. That’s a valid choice.”
And this is the big lie. You can submit a blank ballot or a “None of the above” in those places that require voting for those wishing to take some stance on principle. Not casting a ballot isn’t a choice, and it’s not saying other people should decide how to handle things. It’s saying either I’m so privileged that I can’t be bothered or I’m too lazy to bother to do the one thing our country asks of every adult. And more than anything it increases the distance between the government and the governed, which leads to the delegitimization of the government.
Every time I hear someone say they don’t believe in as many people as possible participating in democracy, what I’m actually hearing is they don’t believe in democracy.
Maybe people should vote because that’s a good civic responsibility. When we leave voting to the older generations that vote in larger numbers we end up with candidates that cater to their needs first.
I’d rather we stage a revolution and do away with the current electoral system in favor of one that allows more than two viable parties.
These are in no way incompatible. Not electing Trump will do a huge amount to protect the people who are working on revolution doing away with the current system.
Also, I believe that not caring about the outcome is a valid stance. If you genuinely don’t have any interest in it, don’t have a firm opinion about the candidates, or whatever, it’s fine to not vote. You’d essentially be flipping a coin anyway, so let the folks that care have their say instead.
If you don’t care about the outcome of Harris versus Trump, then you’re either not aware of what’s going on, or in a position of extreme privilege. You’re not a Haitian, or a Hispanic, or God help you an undocumented immigrant, or a left-wing person living in a Trump-supporting area, or anyone who’s near the poverty line, or any other number of categories of people that Trump is going to do incredible levels of harm to.
You also don’t live on Earth, or else you’re going to die with no descendants before the most serious impacts of climate change start to come to fruition.
If you want to improve the current system, “abstaining as a protest” is selling a huge number of helpless and vulnerable people to suffer or die, for no particular benefit to anybody. That’s the point of this article.
Yeah, I said that incremental change is still an important thing, even if someone isn’t actually supporting democrats. They might not achieve their goals in that election, but you get a chain of increasingly aligned presidents and senators, it achieves the same goal eventually. Or did my comment not post right? I’ll check and make sure, then edit this if it didn’t.
As far as someone that doesn’t care being privileged, sure, whatever, that’s one possibility. But, as I said in response to another comment, if they’re in that state of privilege, why would we want them to vote? Are you assuming they’ll vote the way you and I prefer? I’m not. Again, I’m repeating myself, but there are people that voted for trump the first time because they thought it was funny.
Humans are not exactly the smartest thing in the universe. We’re prone to narcissism, apathy, and outright malice. If someone that’s like that wants to stay home, I’m glad. I don’t want some chowderhead twit voting for the laugh of it. I don’t want people voting by flipping a coin. I don’t want people deciding to vote against sanity just because they’re contrarian jerks they get tired of being told they have to vote, and have to vote one particular way.
And you can’t guarantee protest voters would vote the way you want. I know too many of them, I can promise you that just because they’re left wing doesn’t mean they’d vote democrat. Judge that as you will, but I’ll be glad if they stay home.
I may be voting for what I see as the lesser evil, but I’m also going to be voting sane, and effectively.
This comment was deleted, but it shouldn’t have been. The code to aggressively delete comments from users who don’t have enough data to rank them, meaning potentially throwaway accounts, was malfunctioning, and deleted everything from any accounts without recent activity. It’s only supposed to trigger if that user has some downvotes, but it was deleting anything.
I’ve fixed the code and restored the comment.
And yes, I’m aware of the irony involved. To answer your point, I picked a terrible name for this community. People are not required to upvote you or agree with you, or even be nice to you. It’s meant as a place without toxic low-effort trolling, but certainly people are allowed to hit the downvote button to quickly express disapproval in addition to giving some more well-considered reasons for disagreeing with the stated argument.
What I was going for, unsuccessfully, by saying “pleasant” was that this person can say something like this viewpoint, and other people can disagree with them, but it doesn’t turn into a dumpster fire of personal insults, changes of subject, and wild accusations. At that, I think it’s succeeding, looking at this thread. People are not agreeing but it’s a lot calmer than an equivalent thread in a lot of Lemmy’s politics communities would be.
Ah, I see. Makes a kind of sense as to why there’s less nasty insults, but still insults. In that regard, maybe the name is a benefit. If people think civility is mandatory, they’ll think a bit more before slinging mud, or at least do so subtly.
Eh, I don’t sweat votes most of the time, but I agree with you. It shouldn’t be a dislike/disagree button at all on a C/ like this. Defeats the entire purpose.
It’s nothing I’d complain about for myself, but it would be offputting to anyone that does care about votes, or just wants to have varied discussions in a grossly friendly environment without getting buried by being disagreed with.
I’d rather we stage a revolution and do away with the current electoral system in favor of one that allows more than two viable parties.
But, yeah, if you actually care about the outcome, but can’t find someone to vote for, there’s still a point in voting against the worst case.
Also, I believe that not caring about the outcome is a valid stance. If you genuinely don’t have any interest in it, don’t have a firm opinion about the candidates, or whatever, it’s fine to not vote. You’d essentially be flipping a coin anyway, so let the folks that care have their say instead.
It’s also fine to abstain as protest if you really want to, though I’d still say that voting against the candidates least aligned with your conscience would be a better overall move towards the outcome you’d actually prefer. Incremental change is still change, no matter how small the increments.
I would argue that not voting is ultimately the epitome of selfishness and a sign of unacknowledged privilege. Sure, you may be fine either way and the outcome may not matter to you, but I can guarantee it matters to other people in your life.
So, they’re supposed to vote for who?
You do realize there are people that genuinely don’t care about presidential elections at all. They have no interest in politics, they just go about their lives and ignore anything like that.
Are they supposed to just flip that coin? I’ve known people that that is exactly how they would decide who to vote for if voting was mandatory. That seems a lot worse than abstaining.
Or are they supposed to vote for who they’re told to vote for? Who are they supposed to listen to?
Privilege or not, there are people like that, and I frankly would rather them stay home than risk them voting “for the joke of it”. And there were people that voted for trump for exactly that reason. They thought it would be hilarious.
That kind of person? If them not voting is selfish, I’m okay with that.
And that’s exactly the kind of privilege I am talking about. If you have women in your life, than this election matters. Do you have people of color in your life? Than this election matters. LGBTQIA+? Economically disadvantaged? People with a life expectancy of more than 10 more years? Than this election matters.
Just because they don’t have an interest in politics doesn’t protect them from having culpability for what happens.
As for who they vote for, that’s on them. Pretty sure reading for like 15mins would indicate to most people how they should vote according to their own beliefs.
Democracy is never better for not having had the participation of as many as possible. Indeed, democracies biggest failures are always the result of too few taking part.
We’re kinda talking at cross purposes here.
I agree with you that the current goal has to be stopping the erosion of human and civil rights. It’s more important in general, and to me personally, than my long term preferences regarding our government. I could wish it were otherwise, but as my mamaw used to say, if you wish in one hand and shit in the other, you’ll only have to wash one of them.
I think every election matters, not just presidential ones. Every election is a chance at change for whatever the person thinks is better.
I just don’t agree that voting should be mandatory, nor that everyone voting is better. An engaged, educated, and egalitarian population, I would absolutely want everyone voting. But we don’t have that. For me, if a person isn’t actually voting their conscience, and/or isn’t willing to read for fifteen minutes, it’s no better than rolling dice.
I don’t particularly care if they’re staying out of it from privilege, from apathy, from opposition to the system. It’s their choice.
Besides, not voting is voting. It’s saying “you guys decide”. A non voter is voting for other people to handle things. That’s a valid choice.
I don’t think we’re talking at cross purposes. I think we just disagree on whether disengagement is a “valid” choice.
Very Jeffersonian of you, but Jefferson was kind of a piece of shit when it came to anyone who wasn’t a property owning white man.
Twenty-one countries have compulsory voting. It’s not only doable, it’s not even hard. And it stops people from being able to claim distance from the act of self-governance that’s at the heart of democracy.
In the US in particular we’ve been brainwashed for almost a century that discussing politics is taboo, that being interested in politics is weird, and that not being involved is somehow some form of enlightened centerism. The only people that benefits are the people who can take advantage when most eligible people don’t cast ballots.
And this is the big lie. You can submit a blank ballot or a “None of the above” in those places that require voting for those wishing to take some stance on principle. Not casting a ballot isn’t a choice, and it’s not saying other people should decide how to handle things. It’s saying either I’m so privileged that I can’t be bothered or I’m too lazy to bother to do the one thing our country asks of every adult. And more than anything it increases the distance between the government and the governed, which leads to the delegitimization of the government.
Every time I hear someone say they don’t believe in as many people as possible participating in democracy, what I’m actually hearing is they don’t believe in democracy.
Is this really pleasant? Back handed insults are still insults.
Isn’t the point of this place to first be decent to each other?
deleted by creator
If someone doesn’t care and doesn’t notice, they are acting on their privilege.
Maybe people should vote because that’s a good civic responsibility. When we leave voting to the older generations that vote in larger numbers we end up with candidates that cater to their needs first.
The US should have compulsory voting IMO.
These are in no way incompatible. Not electing Trump will do a huge amount to protect the people who are working on revolution doing away with the current system.
If you don’t care about the outcome of Harris versus Trump, then you’re either not aware of what’s going on, or in a position of extreme privilege. You’re not a Haitian, or a Hispanic, or God help you an undocumented immigrant, or a left-wing person living in a Trump-supporting area, or anyone who’s near the poverty line, or any other number of categories of people that Trump is going to do incredible levels of harm to.
You also don’t live on Earth, or else you’re going to die with no descendants before the most serious impacts of climate change start to come to fruition.
If you want to improve the current system, “abstaining as a protest” is selling a huge number of helpless and vulnerable people to suffer or die, for no particular benefit to anybody. That’s the point of this article.
Yeah, I said that incremental change is still an important thing, even if someone isn’t actually supporting democrats. They might not achieve their goals in that election, but you get a chain of increasingly aligned presidents and senators, it achieves the same goal eventually. Or did my comment not post right? I’ll check and make sure, then edit this if it didn’t.
As far as someone that doesn’t care being privileged, sure, whatever, that’s one possibility. But, as I said in response to another comment, if they’re in that state of privilege, why would we want them to vote? Are you assuming they’ll vote the way you and I prefer? I’m not. Again, I’m repeating myself, but there are people that voted for trump the first time because they thought it was funny.
Humans are not exactly the smartest thing in the universe. We’re prone to narcissism, apathy, and outright malice. If someone that’s like that wants to stay home, I’m glad. I don’t want some chowderhead twit voting for the laugh of it. I don’t want people voting by flipping a coin. I don’t want people deciding to vote against sanity just because they’re contrarian jerks they get tired of being told they have to vote, and have to vote one particular way.
And you can’t guarantee protest voters would vote the way you want. I know too many of them, I can promise you that just because they’re left wing doesn’t mean they’d vote democrat. Judge that as you will, but I’ll be glad if they stay home.
I may be voting for what I see as the lesser evil, but I’m also going to be voting sane, and effectively.
Dang.
I just ran across this community, and I’m disappointed.
This comment is straightforward, on topic, and pleasant, but is sitting here in the negative.
Looks like the point of the place is being ignored.
This comment was deleted, but it shouldn’t have been. The code to aggressively delete comments from users who don’t have enough data to rank them, meaning potentially throwaway accounts, was malfunctioning, and deleted everything from any accounts without recent activity. It’s only supposed to trigger if that user has some downvotes, but it was deleting anything.
I’ve fixed the code and restored the comment.
And yes, I’m aware of the irony involved. To answer your point, I picked a terrible name for this community. People are not required to upvote you or agree with you, or even be nice to you. It’s meant as a place without toxic low-effort trolling, but certainly people are allowed to hit the downvote button to quickly express disapproval in addition to giving some more well-considered reasons for disagreeing with the stated argument.
What I was going for, unsuccessfully, by saying “pleasant” was that this person can say something like this viewpoint, and other people can disagree with them, but it doesn’t turn into a dumpster fire of personal insults, changes of subject, and wild accusations. At that, I think it’s succeeding, looking at this thread. People are not agreeing but it’s a lot calmer than an equivalent thread in a lot of Lemmy’s politics communities would be.
Ah, I see. Makes a kind of sense as to why there’s less nasty insults, but still insults. In that regard, maybe the name is a benefit. If people think civility is mandatory, they’ll think a bit more before slinging mud, or at least do so subtly.
Eh, I don’t sweat votes most of the time, but I agree with you. It shouldn’t be a dislike/disagree button at all on a C/ like this. Defeats the entire purpose.
It’s nothing I’d complain about for myself, but it would be offputting to anyone that does care about votes, or just wants to have varied discussions in a grossly friendly environment without getting buried by being disagreed with.