I sat out the 1972 election between Nixon and Humphrey. Many sat out 2000 and 2016 elections. Here are the consequences.

  • southsamurai
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • geekwithsoul@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Aninjanameddaryll@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

        Is this really pleasant? Back handed insults are still insults.

        Isn’t the point of this place to first be decent to each other?