Your vote is very important, its just most people either don’t use it, or only vote at the highest level. Votes for low level local positions can be very impactful and can be decided by dozens of votes. And if more people did that it would have knock on effects down the line all the way up to national government.
If only people would vote they would have more power
No. People don’t vote because their vote doesn’t matter. Public opinion doesn’t matter. Public support doesn’t matter. Gay rights came after violent riots. Civil rights came after violent riots. Labor rights came after violent riots. Because the voting wasn’t working.
You have it all backwards. People aren’t powerless because they don’t vote. People don’t vote because they’re powerless.
That’s a completely reductive and simplistic view on politics.
It’s a combination of the 2. Yes civil rights came after violent riots, but only because Kennedy/Johnson were in power at the time. If the republicans were in power in 63, then civil rights wouldn’t have been passed.
Gay rights only went through, firstly in states with Dem governments, then nationally because of dem appointed supreme court judges.
This isn’t a case of you can only do one or the other, you can and should do both. Because that’s the only way you actually get change.
You’re describing an actual strategic framing which is voting for the person you would like to be your opponent in the actual conflict that is needed. Vote for Ds not because they’ll fix things but because when you decide to finally riot you’d rather have a D in office than an R. That’s a valid strategy, but voting doesn’t change things. Voting just makes it easier for you to change things.
I do want to point out that corporate profits are higher under D administrations, that it was the D President Truman that oversaw Operation Paperclip to save 10k Nazis from standing trial and that committed genocidal aggression against Korea, that it was the D President Obama that destroyed Libya while it was the most successful and prosperous country in all of Africa, and that it was D President Clinton who saw nothing wrong with having black house slaves in the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion when he and Hillary lived there.
You’re right that the D’s public relations strategy doesn’t afford them the operating room to crack down hard on protestors and riots. However, it should also be noted that after Atwater articulated the Southern Strategy and essentially beat the Ds for a decade, the Ds decided that they needed to be more like the Rs and adopt their own version of the Southern strategy, hence Biden’s Crime Bill and Clinton’s war against welfare. Because the Ds weren’t up for the fight, they triangulated in order to win, and by triangulated we mean that they literally took up far-right positions on purpose in order to win. And look what happened? Everything got worse and now the Ds won’t even entertain addressing it.
But even if you don’t vote, someone else will, and they will still get to play that “democracy” card.
No one is saying don’t vote. They are saying that your vote is impotent.
Your vote is very important, its just most people either don’t use it, or only vote at the highest level. Votes for low level local positions can be very impactful and can be decided by dozens of votes. And if more people did that it would have knock on effects down the line all the way up to national government.
That’s a god of the gaps argument.
No. People don’t vote because their vote doesn’t matter. Public opinion doesn’t matter. Public support doesn’t matter. Gay rights came after violent riots. Civil rights came after violent riots. Labor rights came after violent riots. Because the voting wasn’t working.
You have it all backwards. People aren’t powerless because they don’t vote. People don’t vote because they’re powerless.
That’s a completely reductive and simplistic view on politics.
It’s a combination of the 2. Yes civil rights came after violent riots, but only because Kennedy/Johnson were in power at the time. If the republicans were in power in 63, then civil rights wouldn’t have been passed.
Gay rights only went through, firstly in states with Dem governments, then nationally because of dem appointed supreme court judges.
This isn’t a case of you can only do one or the other, you can and should do both. Because that’s the only way you actually get change.
You’re describing an actual strategic framing which is voting for the person you would like to be your opponent in the actual conflict that is needed. Vote for Ds not because they’ll fix things but because when you decide to finally riot you’d rather have a D in office than an R. That’s a valid strategy, but voting doesn’t change things. Voting just makes it easier for you to change things.
I do want to point out that corporate profits are higher under D administrations, that it was the D President Truman that oversaw Operation Paperclip to save 10k Nazis from standing trial and that committed genocidal aggression against Korea, that it was the D President Obama that destroyed Libya while it was the most successful and prosperous country in all of Africa, and that it was D President Clinton who saw nothing wrong with having black house slaves in the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion when he and Hillary lived there.
You’re right that the D’s public relations strategy doesn’t afford them the operating room to crack down hard on protestors and riots. However, it should also be noted that after Atwater articulated the Southern Strategy and essentially beat the Ds for a decade, the Ds decided that they needed to be more like the Rs and adopt their own version of the Southern strategy, hence Biden’s Crime Bill and Clinton’s war against welfare. Because the Ds weren’t up for the fight, they triangulated in order to win, and by triangulated we mean that they literally took up far-right positions on purpose in order to win. And look what happened? Everything got worse and now the Ds won’t even entertain addressing it.
You are wrong.
Good to know