That’s where I disagree- Voting third party or not voting at all enables fascists. Period. There is no ethical option in a single-vote system. There is only harm reduction.
Is that an extreme view? Yes. Is it wrong? Not when the Republican leader says he’ll be a dictator on day one. Our only option is to first make sure we don’t fall under a fascist dictator and THEN continue to fight. It’s not a problem that will be solved by voting, but voting HAS to be the first step.
I swear to god, it’s like strategic voting doesn’t exist at all.
If you live in a deep blue or red state who’s basically guaranteed not to flip, with maybe extra considerations to which states tally their votes along which lines, because, as we know, states that tally their votes earlier in the process have a much higher sway, so, the DNC winning more overwhelmingly in those states, and especially if those states are swing states, has much more of an effect overall, then a protest vote to a candidate you agree with, in those circumstances, is pretty good.
It potentially shows the democratic party what you actually want, contests their claim of a mainstream, deep blue state, potentially in mass, and can give more legitimacy to those parties or those positions. Even better would probably be voting for a candidate like bernie, or someone internal to the DNC, in that scenario, since that’s more likely to give them a lot more media attention in the future and realistically someone like that has the best chance of winning.
The same principles as all this apply to local elections, just at a much smaller scale, with less media attention, and potentially less information on both sides, since people generally don’t give a fuck about understanding local elections even if they’re the ones being fucking elected. Just send out money and a bunch of lawn ornament signs explaining nothing, and then expect, probably not wrongly, that everyone will just vote for whatever candidate is a part of the party that they generally agree with, even if nobody has any fucking idea what anyone really stands for. Better off even if there’s no hint of an alternative being campaigned or even on the ballot despite everyone just telling people to run for local spots as though that’s really a possibility for most.
Instead, instead of paying attention to why votes are shifting, and how they might appeal to that voter block, the mainstream DNC strategy seems to be to just like demand that leftists have to come over to the democratic party’s side and then just accept all of their orders basically unquestioningly. To just pester them to vote more, and to vote harder, and to vote for the mainline DNC candidate, without any real conversations about how they might actually use their vote or why they might actually want to vote for their desired candidate. And of course that’s the fucking messaging, because that’s the messaging that allows them to get away with as little concessions to the left and the general population’s popular sentiments as possible. Bonus points if you’re always voting for damage prevention, too, because the urgency gives people a morally justifiable reason to just engage in relentless bullying tactics, rather than actually have a nuanced conversation about the ups and downs of a candidate and how they should use their vote, under what circumstances.
You can’t blame people for smelling something fishy in all that, being unable to articulate why or think through for what circumstances they might want to vote in, and then just kind of feel burnt out and cynical about the whole prospect and not really want to vote. It’s not exactly a hard strategy to see through when we’ve been seeing it for the last… 25, 30, 40 years maybe? I dunno, don’t remember those elections before I was born, but they’ve been pulling this shit since bush got into office.
How does voting third party (the only thing I’ve advocated with regard to voting)enable fascists?
I mean, we have the fascist sending 2000lb gbu jdams to aid a genocide and advocating crushing anti war opposition domestically or the fascist who everybody says will be worse. How does not picking a fascist aid the fascists? Should we strategically harm reduce by choosing regular Hitler over hypothetical 1000% ssj3 Hitler?
At what point does even our electoral action aim for what we want as opposed to what they want? Is there such a point?
Here is a good video that explains how mathematically, over time, if you give people only one vote, their options will become whittled down to two major parties who don’t represent anyone. It’s just what happens if you only have one vote per person. In these scenarios, third parties are destined to fail. That’s not hyperbole or exaggeration, it’s literally just how the math works. Ranked choice, or allowing multiple votes per person is one of the only ways to actually have representative representatives.
Should we strategically harm reduce by choosing regular Hitler over hypothetical 1000% ssj3 Hitler?
ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY.
With ‘regular Hitler’, you still have a vote, and you still have a CHANCE to change to government. If you vote for ‘1000$ ssj3 Hitler’, you’re not only guaranteeing that you won’t have another vote, no say in changing the government, but you’re ALSO signing the death warrants for queer people, immigrants, and people of other religions. Trump wants to KILL POLITICAL RIVALS. He’s trying to ban objective reporting. He’s praising Hannibal Lecter! Yes, it’s a fucking awful situation to be in, but we also don’t have an alternative.
At what point does even our electoral action aim for what we want as opposed to what they want?
Like I said before, voting is the FIRST STEP. We do need a major overhaul of the election process, but that starts with states like Maine going for Ranked Choice voting. You have to start local and build your way up, this isn’t a problem that will be solved overnight with a single vote. It will START with a single vote, and once we actually get people who represent us in government, we’ll see actual progress.
so, none of that stuff happened during the first trump presidency but itll happen this time so there’s no point in voting outside the two party fascist duopoly until some hypothetical new electoral system is put in place (how? by voting it in? which of the two parties will welcome this significant change that completely restructures their hold on power?).
that’s a wild outlook.
at what point does even our electoral action on the most individual, atomized level need to aim for what we actually want instead of some deeply flawed and amoral compromise with one of the parties of fascists?
surely there must be a red line that both parties could cross that would make you abandon the dire calculus of strategic harm reduction and instead use your meager but meaningful vote to bring about the future you want, right?
Nope! As I’ve said before, voting is not an ethical choice in a single-vote system. That’s because it’s not the solution. Its the first step.
The real work starts afterwards with local government and getting involved in your community. I already told you how Maine is changing the way voting works there, and everyone can focus on changing their own states laws to continue the work.
Neither of the parties is going to want it, which is why it won’t just be on a nationwide ballot. We have to do it ourselves.
I didn’t say roll over and give power to the fascist state. I said that we already have authoritarians in power. we do.
I agree especially with that last part. that’s why i never, not even once suggested giving in to fascists.
That’s where I disagree- Voting third party or not voting at all enables fascists. Period. There is no ethical option in a single-vote system. There is only harm reduction.
Is that an extreme view? Yes. Is it wrong? Not when the Republican leader says he’ll be a dictator on day one. Our only option is to first make sure we don’t fall under a fascist dictator and THEN continue to fight. It’s not a problem that will be solved by voting, but voting HAS to be the first step.
Also yes.
I swear to god, it’s like strategic voting doesn’t exist at all.
If you live in a deep blue or red state who’s basically guaranteed not to flip, with maybe extra considerations to which states tally their votes along which lines, because, as we know, states that tally their votes earlier in the process have a much higher sway, so, the DNC winning more overwhelmingly in those states, and especially if those states are swing states, has much more of an effect overall, then a protest vote to a candidate you agree with, in those circumstances, is pretty good.
It potentially shows the democratic party what you actually want, contests their claim of a mainstream, deep blue state, potentially in mass, and can give more legitimacy to those parties or those positions. Even better would probably be voting for a candidate like bernie, or someone internal to the DNC, in that scenario, since that’s more likely to give them a lot more media attention in the future and realistically someone like that has the best chance of winning.
The same principles as all this apply to local elections, just at a much smaller scale, with less media attention, and potentially less information on both sides, since people generally don’t give a fuck about understanding local elections even if they’re the ones being fucking elected. Just send out money and a bunch of lawn ornament signs explaining nothing, and then expect, probably not wrongly, that everyone will just vote for whatever candidate is a part of the party that they generally agree with, even if nobody has any fucking idea what anyone really stands for. Better off even if there’s no hint of an alternative being campaigned or even on the ballot despite everyone just telling people to run for local spots as though that’s really a possibility for most.
Instead, instead of paying attention to why votes are shifting, and how they might appeal to that voter block, the mainstream DNC strategy seems to be to just like demand that leftists have to come over to the democratic party’s side and then just accept all of their orders basically unquestioningly. To just pester them to vote more, and to vote harder, and to vote for the mainline DNC candidate, without any real conversations about how they might actually use their vote or why they might actually want to vote for their desired candidate. And of course that’s the fucking messaging, because that’s the messaging that allows them to get away with as little concessions to the left and the general population’s popular sentiments as possible. Bonus points if you’re always voting for damage prevention, too, because the urgency gives people a morally justifiable reason to just engage in relentless bullying tactics, rather than actually have a nuanced conversation about the ups and downs of a candidate and how they should use their vote, under what circumstances.
You can’t blame people for smelling something fishy in all that, being unable to articulate why or think through for what circumstances they might want to vote in, and then just kind of feel burnt out and cynical about the whole prospect and not really want to vote. It’s not exactly a hard strategy to see through when we’ve been seeing it for the last… 25, 30, 40 years maybe? I dunno, don’t remember those elections before I was born, but they’ve been pulling this shit since bush got into office.
How does voting third party (the only thing I’ve advocated with regard to voting)enable fascists?
I mean, we have the fascist sending 2000lb gbu jdams to aid a genocide and advocating crushing anti war opposition domestically or the fascist who everybody says will be worse. How does not picking a fascist aid the fascists? Should we strategically harm reduce by choosing regular Hitler over hypothetical 1000% ssj3 Hitler?
At what point does even our electoral action aim for what we want as opposed to what they want? Is there such a point?
I mean let’s not be so hyperbolic here, he obviously doesn’t have the hair for that
Here is a good video that explains how mathematically, over time, if you give people only one vote, their options will become whittled down to two major parties who don’t represent anyone. It’s just what happens if you only have one vote per person. In these scenarios, third parties are destined to fail. That’s not hyperbole or exaggeration, it’s literally just how the math works. Ranked choice, or allowing multiple votes per person is one of the only ways to actually have representative representatives.
ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY.
With ‘regular Hitler’, you still have a vote, and you still have a CHANCE to change to government. If you vote for ‘1000$ ssj3 Hitler’, you’re not only guaranteeing that you won’t have another vote, no say in changing the government, but you’re ALSO signing the death warrants for queer people, immigrants, and people of other religions. Trump wants to KILL POLITICAL RIVALS. He’s trying to ban objective reporting. He’s praising Hannibal Lecter! Yes, it’s a fucking awful situation to be in, but we also don’t have an alternative.
Like I said before, voting is the FIRST STEP. We do need a major overhaul of the election process, but that starts with states like Maine going for Ranked Choice voting. You have to start local and build your way up, this isn’t a problem that will be solved overnight with a single vote. It will START with a single vote, and once we actually get people who represent us in government, we’ll see actual progress.
so, none of that stuff happened during the first trump presidency but itll happen this time so there’s no point in voting outside the two party fascist duopoly until some hypothetical new electoral system is put in place (how? by voting it in? which of the two parties will welcome this significant change that completely restructures their hold on power?).
that’s a wild outlook.
at what point does even our electoral action on the most individual, atomized level need to aim for what we actually want instead of some deeply flawed and amoral compromise with one of the parties of fascists?
surely there must be a red line that both parties could cross that would make you abandon the dire calculus of strategic harm reduction and instead use your meager but meaningful vote to bring about the future you want, right?
Nope! As I’ve said before, voting is not an ethical choice in a single-vote system. That’s because it’s not the solution. Its the first step.
The real work starts afterwards with local government and getting involved in your community. I already told you how Maine is changing the way voting works there, and everyone can focus on changing their own states laws to continue the work.
Neither of the parties is going to want it, which is why it won’t just be on a nationwide ballot. We have to do it ourselves.
so there’s nothing the two parties could both be doing that would make you say “damn, i should not support either of these groups in any way”?
No.
Not voting appears the exact same way as saying “Hey, both parties are equally good, and I’m fine with either!”
At no point have I ever suggested anyone not vote.
So you’re saying there’s nothing the two parties could do to lose your support and cause you to vote third party?
Removed by mod
that nominative determinism is brutal.
Oof, you’re one to talk