I get the logic you put forth. Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I’m always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone’s vote by default.
In this case, let’s say there aren’t any other parties on the ballot other than the Democrats and Republicans. In Michigan specifically you have a voter group, that says that they cannot vote for genocide especially if it is against their own families or people that look like them. And both parties are either promising the continuation thereof or have been engaged in it and have been excluding anything related to addressing it, or people representing that voter group, from their campaign. So the presumption, that if there wasn’t a Green Party to vote for that they would be coming out to vote for the Democrats is imho just flawed. They might just as likely stay home.
What I find even more baffling is that this party can’t seem to clearly outperform the even more clearly dangerous candidate to democracy. The Arabic or Muslim population in Michigan should not be this decisive for the outcome, if the Democrats were able to actually persuade voters to turn out by delivering an attractive policy plan, thereby earning the votes, instead of just arrogantly thinking, they’re entitled to them.
Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I’m always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone’s vote by default.
If you live in a democracy where the spoiler effect isn’t an issue, then just be happy, whistle, and move on.
If you live in a democracy with first past the poll elections with an electoral college, then you should understand how the system works and vote accordingly.
The spoiler effect is where you vote for someone (Jill Stein in this case) who you think better aligns with your particular set of policy goals, but since they have no chance of actually winning you help the candidate most opposed to your policy goals (Trump in this case) by subtracting votes from the less aligned candidate (Harris in this case) that actually does stand a chance of winning.
It’s an ironic outcome of voting in our system. By voting for the person most aligned with your preferences you actually help the person least aligned with your preferences.
Trump is worse on genocide and climate and will be assisted greatly by idiots voting for Jill Stein in swing states.
They’ve done research and provided these assholes aren’t on the ballot, people usually choose a ballot-present major party option instead.
I did say that I live in a democracy with more parties, not that it does not include elections where there is the “first past the post” principle, so I’m familiar with the spoiler effect.
Trump is worse on genocide
Although that might be true in some sense, please try to understand the people affected here. If your family is the one affected, it doesn’t get more dead, than dead. I’m not saying, I would vote the same way, but I can understand not wanting to actively vote for killing your family.
Nobody thinks they are entitled to votes. This is about triage during an emergency.
To make it simple, let’s assign a number out of 100 - Likelihood that a second trump presidency enthusiastically and loudly helps Israel escalate and “finish” their genocide in Gaza: 98.9
Likelihood that post inauguration, a Harris presidency does something that doesn’t go as far as the above, but still does meaningful damage, just more quietly through diplomacy and weapons shipments: 32
Now it isn’t great that the Harris number isn’t zero, even negative, but the reasoning for her campaigns current position is likely a combination of election politics plus the vestiges of Biden’s outdated and misguided position on blind support for an Israel that’s in his mind and not in front of him.
So first up in a triage… You get Harris in because less likelihood for absolute annihilation. I’d then wager a likely softening at worst to full end of support at best once Biden and election are out of the active picture. Most importantly, we eject Harris because a Harris presidency will preserve your right to protest Harris. A second trump presidency likely leads to the end of American democracy and the freedoms Americans take for granted.
After a Harris admin victory she needs to be sworn in the following January, but on day one, I fully support that we FILL the streets across the country, a la Vietnam era protests. We block freeways and interrupt commerce until a Harris administration ends all US support of Israel’s genocide. We will have that right and that chance with Harris, you’ll get shot in the fucking eye and tackled into an unmarked minivan if you try that in a second trump administration.
Realize the weight of this decision, and listen to Stein’s own campaign telling you they are doing to get trump elected. Time to get WIDE awake and ADULT on the reality here.
I’m familiar with First-Past-The-Post voting and the spoiler effect. I’m also familiar with choosing to vote for whom you’d prefer to fight when elected. We are dealing with the crimes of crimes here and I can absolutely understand anyone whose family is affected to not want to take an active role in their killing. Especially since the campaign has not signaled to that voter block, that they are seen or heard. The best example is denying a Palestinian-American a shortened and cleared speech at the DNC. It could have been only a ceremonial thing, less weight than lip-service, but they opted for exclusion instead, i.e. the opposite.
My main point though: How can this party not be clearly ahead of that menace to democracy and its institutions? This one voter block should not be the deciding thing. Overlooking the agency of the Democratic Party in this and putting full blame on the people rubs me very anti-democratic. Implying them to be immature and other forms of voter shaming is not making a good case either.
If you’re in a poorly made boat that has a hole in it with two other people…
And you are all actively sinking in that faulty boat, about to die in the middle of the ocean…
And one of the people states they will make more holes so you all drown…
And the other wants to work to keep the boat floating enough to get to shore, but not to your ideal…
Who do you help in that moment, or do you fold your hands and sink on principle? And you understand that sinking is not a neutral, moral victory here, because you’ve effectively supported the person who wanted to make more holes and sink the boat.
If you don’t get to shore, you won’t live to attempt to sue that horrible boat company to hold them accountable and keep others from using their faulty boats. And if you don’t help the person bailing out water, the person making more holes will kill you all with less effort.
The “people” above are to represent general philosophies of the two “sides” in this discussion, not individual candidates. There is no option to truly stay neutral here, direct action or willful inaction, both have impacts that you are responsible for.
Look, I get what you are saying and even agree to a certain degree. Yet, the premise here is that one of both parties is opposed to genocide, which is false. For the affected voter group, who are getting shamed for making the crime of crimes their litmus test, both people are trying to make more holes albeit of different sizes.
So, what would you do? I would probably throw both of them over board ;)
I get the logic you put forth. Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I’m always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone’s vote by default.
In this case, let’s say there aren’t any other parties on the ballot other than the Democrats and Republicans. In Michigan specifically you have a voter group, that says that they cannot vote for genocide especially if it is against their own families or people that look like them. And both parties are either promising the continuation thereof or have been engaged in it and have been excluding anything related to addressing it, or people representing that voter group, from their campaign. So the presumption, that if there wasn’t a Green Party to vote for that they would be coming out to vote for the Democrats is imho just flawed. They might just as likely stay home.
What I find even more baffling is that this party can’t seem to clearly outperform the even more clearly dangerous candidate to democracy. The Arabic or Muslim population in Michigan should not be this decisive for the outcome, if the Democrats were able to actually persuade voters to turn out by delivering an attractive policy plan, thereby earning the votes, instead of just arrogantly thinking, they’re entitled to them.
If you live in a democracy where the spoiler effect isn’t an issue, then just be happy, whistle, and move on.
If you live in a democracy with first past the poll elections with an electoral college, then you should understand how the system works and vote accordingly.
The spoiler effect is where you vote for someone (Jill Stein in this case) who you think better aligns with your particular set of policy goals, but since they have no chance of actually winning you help the candidate most opposed to your policy goals (Trump in this case) by subtracting votes from the less aligned candidate (Harris in this case) that actually does stand a chance of winning.
It’s an ironic outcome of voting in our system. By voting for the person most aligned with your preferences you actually help the person least aligned with your preferences.
Trump is worse on genocide and climate and will be assisted greatly by idiots voting for Jill Stein in swing states.
They’ve done research and provided these assholes aren’t on the ballot, people usually choose a ballot-present major party option instead.
I did say that I live in a democracy with more parties, not that it does not include elections where there is the “first past the post” principle, so I’m familiar with the spoiler effect.
Nobody thinks they are entitled to votes. This is about triage during an emergency.
To make it simple, let’s assign a number out of 100 - Likelihood that a second trump presidency enthusiastically and loudly helps Israel escalate and “finish” their genocide in Gaza: 98.9
Likelihood that post inauguration, a Harris presidency does something that doesn’t go as far as the above, but still does meaningful damage, just more quietly through diplomacy and weapons shipments: 32
Now it isn’t great that the Harris number isn’t zero, even negative, but the reasoning for her campaigns current position is likely a combination of election politics plus the vestiges of Biden’s outdated and misguided position on blind support for an Israel that’s in his mind and not in front of him.
So first up in a triage… You get Harris in because less likelihood for absolute annihilation. I’d then wager a likely softening at worst to full end of support at best once Biden and election are out of the active picture. Most importantly, we eject Harris because a Harris presidency will preserve your right to protest Harris. A second trump presidency likely leads to the end of American democracy and the freedoms Americans take for granted.
After a Harris admin victory she needs to be sworn in the following January, but on day one, I fully support that we FILL the streets across the country, a la Vietnam era protests. We block freeways and interrupt commerce until a Harris administration ends all US support of Israel’s genocide. We will have that right and that chance with Harris, you’ll get shot in the fucking eye and tackled into an unmarked minivan if you try that in a second trump administration.
Realize the weight of this decision, and listen to Stein’s own campaign telling you they are doing to get trump elected. Time to get WIDE awake and ADULT on the reality here.
I’m familiar with First-Past-The-Post voting and the spoiler effect. I’m also familiar with choosing to vote for whom you’d prefer to fight when elected. We are dealing with the crimes of crimes here and I can absolutely understand anyone whose family is affected to not want to take an active role in their killing. Especially since the campaign has not signaled to that voter block, that they are seen or heard. The best example is denying a Palestinian-American a shortened and cleared speech at the DNC. It could have been only a ceremonial thing, less weight than lip-service, but they opted for exclusion instead, i.e. the opposite.
My main point though: How can this party not be clearly ahead of that menace to democracy and its institutions? This one voter block should not be the deciding thing. Overlooking the agency of the Democratic Party in this and putting full blame on the people rubs me very anti-democratic. Implying them to be immature and other forms of voter shaming is not making a good case either.
If you’re in a poorly made boat that has a hole in it with two other people…
And you are all actively sinking in that faulty boat, about to die in the middle of the ocean…
And one of the people states they will make more holes so you all drown…
And the other wants to work to keep the boat floating enough to get to shore, but not to your ideal…
Who do you help in that moment, or do you fold your hands and sink on principle? And you understand that sinking is not a neutral, moral victory here, because you’ve effectively supported the person who wanted to make more holes and sink the boat.
If you don’t get to shore, you won’t live to attempt to sue that horrible boat company to hold them accountable and keep others from using their faulty boats. And if you don’t help the person bailing out water, the person making more holes will kill you all with less effort.
The “people” above are to represent general philosophies of the two “sides” in this discussion, not individual candidates. There is no option to truly stay neutral here, direct action or willful inaction, both have impacts that you are responsible for.
What do you do?
Look, I get what you are saying and even agree to a certain degree. Yet, the premise here is that one of both parties is opposed to genocide, which is false. For the affected voter group, who are getting shamed for making the crime of crimes their litmus test, both people are trying to make more holes albeit of different sizes.
So, what would you do? I would probably throw both of them over board ;)