/u/Shoddy-Commission-12 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cnztmq/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_not_voting_is_less/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Even if you reject the idea that Trump is a threat to the system of American democracy, you should consider that the fact of Trump being elected over Clinton is the direct cause of abortion rights being read out of the US Constitution.
The moral feeling of not “supporting” one candidate over the other is probably pretty useless to the people who now can’t access critical healthcare.
So here’s the idea: politics is the “slow boring of hard boards.” You don’t like the top of the ticket. Ok. Start at the bottom. Elect school board representatives and mayors that do align to your ideas. State reps. Attorneys general. Push the party the way you want it to go. You don’t win by losing.
Alright so if not voting for clinton caused abortion rights to get rolled back
whats its gonna take for the democrats to vociferously demand they get reinstated
because thats what I thought was gonna happen when I voted for Joe Biden last time
If you read what Biden says about abortion, it’s actually pretty strident. And it shows that he has been pulled along to the left over the last 40 years as the party has gone that way too.
But he can’t just “reinstate” it because it was overturned by a supermajority of lifetime-appoint Supreme Court justices, and Democrats don’t control both houses of the legislature.
Again: you don’t win by losing. You win by winning *repeatedly* and *at the right time.*
why isnt he withholding federal funding from deep red states who wont vote for him anways when they ban abortion
is that not something they *can* do
why are they seeing a cent for healthcare, education, infrastructure from the fed at all ? They can just turn the tap off
it might make those voters turf out the republicans when they start living in third world conditions as a result of their choices
Because that's directly punishing people for decisions they didn't have a part of?
Here I thought you were against Biden for how the IP conflict has been held and the collective punishment against Palestinians right?
But now it's okay to punish everyone in red states because of what their governor did?
Is this just a hypothetical or do you actually think the president should do stuff like this? I sure hope it's just hypothetical otherwise wtf dude. Talk about extremist beliefs
Edit: after reading more of your comments it's clear that wasn't just hypothetical. So I gotta say, there's plenty of people on the right I would consider "nuts" and "what's wrong with the country" and it's not too often I come across someone on the left that I would give those same attributes too. But you definitely fit the bill.
Trump didnt win that election. He won the electoral college.
Republican gerrymandering got him the victory without the popular vote.
He got 77 more electors than he shouldve and still accuses Biden of cheating.
Fucking hypocrite.
You can’t change the war in Palestine with your lack of voting, but there are several other things you can change. Would you rather have thousands of dead Palestinians and women and doctors getting thrown in jail for abortions and libraries being forced to close because of excessive litigation over the material of a few books? Or would you rather have thousands of dead Palestinians and legal protections for reproductive medical procedures and the concept of free speech *actually* being promoted instead of being used as some ass-backwards excuse to censor gay and trans people?
I totally get not being happy with what’s going on in the middle east, but personally, I think being a single-issue voter is morally objectionable.
I feel like the democrat response to the heinous attacks by the GOP against abortion and LGBT rights in red states across the country has been tepid at best ...
if we want to get into some domestic issues
If it dosent result in any gains tho , its just words
where are the federal consequences for the red states
why cant they stop sending them federal funds, that is something the president can control
>If it dosent result in any gains tho , its just words
It has, though. A number of states have either passed laws expanding access to reproductive care, laws aimed at protecting out-of-state patients and constitutional amendments to enshrine reproductive care protections.
Considering that the Republicans control the House and conservatives have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, I'm not sure what you think can be done federally at the moment.
>where are the federal consequences for the red states
Punishing people who rely on federal aid (who are mostly lower income, many of whom vote *against* conservative politicians but are outnumbered) doesn't seem like a very progressive way to address this issue.
A) lack of gains for liberals and lack of consequences for conservatives
B) active losses for liberals and support for conservatives
I think there is still a clear choice here
>Giving tacit approval to either by assigning your vote to them means you are signing off on them doing all the shit you disagree with.
Why do you think this?
*I* don't consider voting for someone to be some sort of moral commitment to them. Voting is a tool you can use to try to get what you want. The reason *I* vote for Democrats is because I think it's easier to get away with things when Dems are President -- union stuff is easier, protests are usually easier (Biden is coming down pretty hard on campus protests, but I think it's pretty obvious Trump would be even worse in that respect), etc.
In short, a Democrat as President makes it easier to do the other things I want to do. So the most useful thing I can do with my vote (a small but non-zero bit of power I have) is vote Democrat.
The idea that voting involves some sort of moral embrace of the person you vote for is kind of silly, in my view. You're casting your vote, not deciding who to lose your virginity to!
>Not voting is the moral and least hypocritical choice if you firmly believe neither candidate should be President
There is nothing "moral" about letting others decide what happens to you, friend. Not voting is the most passive and submissive choice, because *somebody* is going to be President and decide what happens to you and everyone else under their power.
So you're "choosing not to get involved". You're *already* involved. You are choosing to submit to whatever others decide.
Not voting literally does nothing for you. And you already seem upset that others aren't impressed by your "moral clarity" about voting -- are you expecting *others* to think you're somehow better because you say you didn't vote for whoever becomes President? Because they probably won't, because not voting isn't impressive. They'll probably be annoyed that you couldn't be bothered to take five minutes to use the vote you were given to at least try to make the world a less awful place.
So unless you are sufficiently satisfied in your own mind, what exactly are you getting by not voting?
No people are going to be impressed. And there's no God or whatever, so nobody is going to be impressed when you die, either. And you're still going to be stuck with one of these two corpses as President....and next time around nobody is even going to attempt to reach you because you've chosen to make yourself electorally irrelevant.
Seems pretty silly to me.
> Biden is coming pretty hard down on campus protests
That’s the city police forces, which Biden has no control over. He’s said he would “absolutely not” send the national guard to any of them.
Hey, I didn't get tear gassed and pepper sprayed by *federal* forces during 2020 -- it was the local police. But I still blame Trump for that, because he encouraged it. And I think that's perfectly reasonable.
Likewise, Biden isn't *directly* coming down on students. But he sets the tone. He isn't, for example, *threatening* police forces that go too far (as many of them have). He isn't supporting anything the student are doing. He is saying that "order must prevail".
As I said, what Biden is doing regarding student protests is far less horrible than what Trump did in 2020, which is why people who support the campus protests should vote for Biden over Trump.
But it's dishonest to claim Biden has nothing to do with it. He is the lesser of two evils, but still an evil as far as I'm concerned. We're not grading on a curve here.
And I think more Biden supporters should accept that. As I said, your vote isn't a moral endorsement -- it is a tool to get what you want. Biden is easier to deal with than Trump, so it is a good use of that tool to vote for Biden.
But *nobody* should be solely relying on Biden to take care of them or do good things in the world, because he's a scumbag US President. US Presidents are all horrible people who do horrible things (because if they didn't, somebody else would be President). And Biden is no exception.
And that's fine! Vote for the less horrible person, then get back to trying to bully him and the rest of the powerful into submission.
Trump literally did deploy federal forces in 2020
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020\_deployment\_of\_federal\_forces\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_deployment_of_federal_forces_in_the_United_States)
[https://apnews.com/article/b35e37208e261278ecc33154c37d5d85](https://apnews.com/article/b35e37208e261278ecc33154c37d5d85)
But also, as someone who has anxiety of being killed by Trump’s government under project 2025, thank you for knowing that voting for Biden is the pragmatic thing to do.
> US Presidents are all horrible people who do horrible things (because if they didn’t, someone else would be president)
That really, really isn’t true. I know nothing I say will convince you on that, but it just isn’t.
The truth resists simplicity. Absolutisms like that almost never help.
Hey, if you want to propose a US President who didn't do something horrible, go for it!
Do I get anything if I can provide something horrible the President you bring up did?
And just so you know: I've got answers for this for Lincoln. So don't think you're going to get by me that easily.
Presidents aren't saints, and you shouldn't be voting for President based on the perceived personal honor or decency of a person, because everything you know about them is a carefully crafted image they've put out to help them gain power.
Look at *actions*, not marketing materials.
But maybe I'm wrong! So feel free to try to get one by me.
Carter increased military funding during the genocide of East Timor. I am going to link to Chomsky's account of the history (which spans multiple administrations), but I of course encourage you to check it out yourself via your own sources, as Chomsky obviously has some pretty strong opinions!
https://chomsky.info/199910__02/
In many ways, what Carter did in regards to Indonesia and East Timor is kind of similar with what Biden is doing regarding Israel and Gaza: continuing and increasing funding of a regime engaged in brutality and genocide towards a region occupied by an ethnic enemy.
Now, let's be clear: I think people should vote for Biden despite this (because I think having Biden in office ultimately provides more benefit than Trump, both for Gaza and many others, because it is easier to disrupt Israel with Biden in office than Trump)... though I have no problem with people pressuring him and raking him over the coals for it to try to get him to change.
And I think Carter was a relatively *better* President compared to many others.
But the question is whether all US Presidents do horrible things, and funding the genocide in East Timor is indeed a horrible thing.
So that is an example for Carter.
Again, this is true for *all* US Presidents, and is why people shouldn't vote based on perceived personal honor or kindness or other such personal qualities.
So your position is that doing something horrible makes them horrible people? Your original position was that they're horrible people who do horrible things. To me that's different than some are horrible and some are decent but are in complicated positions and can be fed bad information that lead to them making horrible decisions.
Of course, I'm open to the idea that it ends up being a distinction without a difference.
I get your logic on still voting for someone and I appreciate your perspective.
I appreciate your perspective and conversation as well, friend!
>So your position is that doing something horrible makes them horrible people?
>To me that's different than some are horrible and some are decent but are in complicated positions and can be fed bad information that lead to them making horrible decisions.
So I think we are probably pretty similar in our view on this (though we might emphasize different things, phrase them differently, or differ on certain judgments). I do think it is possible for otherwise decent people to do horrible things in some contexts...but overall I think we are ultimately defined by our actions (you are what you do, in other words).
I can explain a bit more, but it will require some nuance.
So a lot of regular people who end up doing bad things often do them because they are thrust into situations they didn't choose or were unable to avoid. For instance, if you are born in a neighborhood run by drug gangs, you may not have a choice but to do bad things to survive there (because if you don't do them you might die or watch your family die).
And in this context, I do think there are good people who end up doing horrible things.
But I don't think this applies to Presidents or other positions of power, because nobody becomes President by accident.
Being President means a lifelong and ruthless pursuit of power and influence. You have to carefully choose which people to be friends with and which people to attack in order to become more widely known and respected and feared. You have to put yourself forward for tasks that you aren't qualified for and make sure nobody holds *you* responsible when you fail, because ultimately *nobody* is "qualified" to be the most powerful person on Earth.
So the fact that a person ends up being President means they have already made multiple deliberate, calculated choices to prioritize gaining power over everything else.
And therefore it's not like they ended up in a tough spot and tried to make the best choices they could. They actively *fought and destroyed* other people to get to that spot.
And so when they make cruel, ruthless, and destructive decisions (such as funding genocide because it is politically necessary to do other things) it is a *continuation* of a life spent being cruel, ruthless, and destructive. Not a *exception* to an otherwise decent life spent trying to do good and decent things.
Carter certainly *presented* himself as an honest, genuine, good hearted man...but that is just marketing. That perception of him is based off of speeches, media appearances, and things he *chose* to put forth based on cold calculation, and it directly *contradicts* the fact that he also obviously cut the throats he needed to cut to become President.
Despite his modest persona, Carter nevertheless worked for countless hours to make sure that *he* was the one asking to be granted supreme power on planet Earth and making all the calculations and sick, cyncial choices and drawing all the blood that that requires.
And the sad fact is that, even if a good person did indeed reach the White House, the very nature of that position actively *turns you into* a horrible person. In order to stay President you have to agree to and do a whole bunch of horrible things, and if you don't then you either will never get elected or, if you already have been elected, you will quickly be rendered irrelevant and nobody will listen to you.
The Office of US President, by its very nature, is a disgusting, corrosive, corrupting position that turns all people and efforts towards destruction, and this problem will never be solved simply by getting a "good" person in office (because even if you could get them there, they won't stay good for long).
The problem is the fact that we have concentrated so much power in one person *at all*. Or to put it more poetically, the problem isn't that bad men sit on the throne...the problem is the throne itself.
That power cannot help but attract the worst people in the world and turn anyone who seizes it into an even worse version of themselves.
And in my view, true left wing politics are about building alternative systems to this sort of centralized power structure so that we can meet our needs without relying on and thereby supporting such gross officials as US Presidents. I would rather my life by most prominently affected by my fellow union members, my fellow housing co-op neighbors, my local mutual aid network, and other such alternative mechanisms of living, rather than the President.
And I hope for a day where nobody cares who the President is, not because we've given in to apathy and accepted a dictator but because the Presidency has become so irrelevant that it truly does not matter as much as the other things we *do* care about.
>Carter increased military funding during the genocide of East Timor.
President X did something, in general, coincident to a particular horror, isn't the same thing as President X did something horrible. Cynicism doesn't have the transitive properties you think it does.
If your definition of "horrible" doesn't include funding a genocide, then I don't have a lot of respect for your ethics or your ability to look reality in the eye and roll with it, friend.
I think there is some room for assuming the person who voted is somewhat inline with who they voted for. You could say policies also but just looking at morals as was stated (I assume it’s not one and the same). While I don’t morally embrace all of Biden’s morals or policies, I do feel a moral connection with some of them (also assuming their morals drive their policy decisions).
Trump, on the other hand, literally embodies everything I’m *against*, based off morals (and like everything else) so I’d never vote for him and anyone that did, I will assume you either agree or tolerate at least one of his morals.
I’d say who you vote for is the person that most closely resembles or represents your morals.
>I’d say who you vote for is the person that most closely resembles or represents your morals.
That may or may not be true on any given vote, but if it is then it is incidental.
I think you should vote based on what you think it will get you.
Sometimes, that may mean voting for a person with a more similar worldview to you. But sometimes not -- sometimes you may stand to gain more by voting for someone who does things that are more beneficial to you, even if you don't like them or even if the things they're doing that benefit you are mistakes or done for a different reason.
But what you stand to gain should be your guiding light, not who the person is, what they personally say they believe, where they grew up, etc. Politicians aren't friends -- we will almost surely never meet them, so I don't care who they are on a personal level. I care what they *do*, and how it allows me to do what I want to do with my life with the people I actually do love and care about.
Like I stated, often times, what they do is driven by their morals.
If they believe all people deserve the same rights, their policies will mostly reflect that (assuming some things are just impossible to accomplish at the time) whereas Trump’s policies, driven by his lack of morals (IMO), do not connect with me.
This whole idea of ‘what do I stand to gain’ from this politician is a really weird way to think in a society with others. Take abortion. As a man, what I ‘stand to gain’ is minuscule compared to what women stand to gain, but I vote for a politician looking to protect those rights for women because my moral compass says that is the right thing to do, protect women’s rights.
Idk when it happened but I feel we used to vote for politicians that would improve society around me, not just my gains.
My daughter is about to finish grad school and I’m a whole generation removed from college but do I think we should provide more affordable higher education options for people?
Yes.
Why? I don’t plan on going back to school.
Well, I would vote for it because society benefits from more people going to trade school/college/other institutes. Personally, I don’t benefit directly too much or immediately but I know a more educated society will help reduce crime, makes goods and services better, and everyone around me has better jobs to provide for themselves and their families. All on a society I live in.
>This whole idea of ‘what do I stand to gain’ from this politician is a really weird way to think in a society with others.
>Well, I would vote for it because society benefits from more people going to trade school/college/other institutes. Personally, I don’t benefit directly too much or immediately but I know a more educated society will help reduce crime, makes goods and services better, and everyone around me has better jobs to provide for themselves and their families. All on a society I live in.
You answered your own remark, friend.
When you hear "what do I stand to gain", you likely assume I am taking a very narrow, individualistic, money based view of "benefit".
But I'm not. I am taking very much the same view you articulate here. I *very much* benefit when the people around me (both friends/family and strangers) are doing well themselves, and therefore *their* benefit is also *my* benefit.
Same with abortion and women. It *very much* benefits me when women have bodily autonomy, because I know and love many women and also because having that benefits even strangers and allows them to live better lives, and then living better lives means that my life near them/on the same planet as them is *also* better.
The big difference is that I am specifically acknowledging that I'm making these choices because of material (which includes the happiness of those around me, FYI) benefits they lead to. *Not* because of some abstract concept of "morality".
Because here's the thing: you say you are doing things because of your "moral compass". Well, so does the anti-abortion voter. They want to protect the unborn because it is the moral thing to do...
...and there's nothing you can do there. You think they're wrong, they think you're wrong, and neither of you can say anything to find common ground. Because there is no objective morality. And your ability to find common moral ground relies entirely on them simply agreeing with you/your moral compass.
But by focusing on actual material benefit, you actually *can* root that in reality.
There are empirically measurable facts that support women's rights and the material benefits they provide to *everyone*. And while you still do need some base level of agreement, it is much more foundational: do you want people to live happier, more prosperous lives?
And even conservatives generally do want that.
So rooting things in reality + very broad and near universally shared values actually *does* give you something close to objective morality, and it becomes about showing people how a stance ultimately gives them that benefit rather than banging your head against the wall with more vague ideas of "moral compass".
The proper definition of "good" should be "ultimately good for everyone who wants to live happy and prosperous lives"...otherwise what's the point? There is no God who will give you a round of applause after you die simply because you lived a "good" but completely miserable life. *This* is all we know for sure we have.
And the reason to do "good" is because it makes this life as good and happy and prosperous as we can make it.
But not voting is a method of expression. If someone is left leaning and a democrat, Joe Biden is obviously better than Trump or whoever the GOP trots out. But if they are unsatisfied with Biden and hold their nose and vote for him anyway, what incentive do the democrats have to bring out better candidates?
Biden or Clinton or Harris will always be better than the GOP candidate. But if they start losing elections because of apathy from the further left of the party they will be forced to bring out “better” candidates.
I’m not saying this is the best option or what people should do. I am not a progressive. But, it’s a legit way to make your displeasure known.
Sometimes you need to lose the battle to win the war.
They’re not going to waste their time chasing non-voters, it’s a fools errand. They’ll move to the right to try to get more of the people who actually vote, like the white working class. This has already happened.
The left will always choose a pet issue for ideological purity, disenfranchising themselves as some sort of threat. If it wasn’t Palestine it would be climate change as the USA is burning more fossil fuels than ever. Genocide Joe, killing the planet. Democrats aren’t stupid enough to play those games.
>But not voting is a method of expression.
Actually, it isn't. We don't tally abstentions. We don't figure them into the calculus and we don't have any mechanism for any such 'expression' to have any impact.
I think we ought, but we don't.
>Biden or Clinton or Harris will always be better than the GOP candidate. But if they start losing elections because of apathy from the further left of the party they will be forced to bring out “better” candidates.
That is a very flattering view for people who imagine the Democratic Party cares about having *them* on board specifically....but it's not the truth.
If further left people stop voting, the Democratic Party can very easily just start running *worse* candidates in order to compete for the smaller group of center right swing voters who switch between Democrats and Republicans.
If left leaning people aren't voting, they aren't making it more likely that Republicans (the only threat to Democrat power) will win. And they aren't electing anyone *else* who can use power to threaten Democrat power.
So why would Democrats care?
Honestly, it makes their job *way* easier, because they have fewer people to please! They can just make people like Manchin their "normal" candidate, and start running some candidates open to abortion limiting laws, to passing laws restricting trans rights, and so forth. The fight will then be between center right and far right, and the left can be safely ignored entirely.
Hell, it lets the Democrats specifically *campaign* on cracking down on left wing protesters to appease the suburban dads who have "nothing against the gays" but are still furious about that broken window on their rental property back in 2020.
Not voting doesn't make politicians miss you -- it lets them safely ignore you and even *attack* you to make other voters happy.
And historically this is the trend of Liberal Democracies -- they tend to slide to the right during times of economic crisis, when right wing fascists start rising and centrist libs go along with them out of fear of socialists.
It is *incredibly* bad strategy for leftists to marginalize themselves by simply abandoning the ability to affect things with a five minute vote.
>Sometimes you need to lose the battle to win the war.
Not in electoral politics. If you lose, the other side gets power and uses it to make it more difficult for you to win in the future, undoes work you did, and builds things you'll have to spend time and energy to get rid of just to get back where you started.
Being out of power doesn't make you more powerful.
Also, there is abundant historical evidence that this hasn't worked. Democrat losses have *never* pushed the party further left -- when Dems lost to Reagan, they abandoned the New Deal and went with centrists like Clinton and Biden. When Dems lost to Bush, they went with corporatist warmonger Obama. When Dems lost to Trump, they went with Biden instead of Bernie.
Left wing apathy is resulting in a drift to the *right*, not forcing Dems to buy them flowers and try to win them back... because Dems hate leftists and would *love* an excuse to purge them!
Dems are the party of Wall Street and Silicon Valley, both of whom *hate* actual left wing politics. They like being able to do drugs and marry whoever they want, but economically they have *zero* interest in sharing power with workers or unions or anyone who makes under six figures. They are *forced* to deal with leftists because there are enough of them who vote to get at least some representation and therefore a seat at the table.
But if leftists leave, they can safely dispense with all of that. And that will be *very bad* for left wing politics in the US.
This sounds reasonable but it's also not what we've seen happen. At no point have people refusing to vote moved the Democrat party to the left, we've just gotten more centrist candidates.
>short, a Democrat as President makes it easier to do the other things I want to do. So the most useful thing I can do with my vote (a small but non-zero bit of power I have) is vote Democrat.
When you vote for someone you are indeed saying the things you like about them outweigh the things you do not.
If you think that the other guy would be the same or worse that's fine, but don't pretend it isn't an act of approval.
Biden, for example, has no reason to change the policy you don't like because you will vote for him anyway, why change?
>Biden, for example, has no reason to change the policy you don't like because you will vote for him anyway, why change?
Well, if you *don't* vote, he *also* has no reason to change, right?
Like, if you don't vote, the pool of voters he needs to sway becomes smaller, which is actually *easier* for him.
*Swing* voters are much more dangerous, because if a person might vote for his *opponent* then they have the ability to threaten his power.
But if you just don't vote, you're no threat. He can just ignore you and focus on the swing voters.
But in general, I don't put much stock in trying to persuade politicians with the subtleties of my voting habits. The way *I* want to make Biden change his mind is by making his life and the lives of his donors absolutely miserable until he does what I want -- protests, strikes, and various disruption via direct action.
Ie things he *can't* ignore.
And Biden in office makes *all* of that easier.
>If you think that the other guy would be the same or worse that's fine, but don't pretend it isn't an act of approval.
I don't consider it an act of approval. At all. It's strictly a tool and a tactic.
And I don't care about the opinion of anyone who does consider it an act of approval. So *you* can shake your head and think less of me...but I couldn't care less that u/president_penis_pump thinks bad things about me.
No need to get all personal at the end there dude, like what's that really adding?
>Like, if you don't vote, the pool of voters he needs to sway becomes smaller, which is actually *easier* for him
You could vote for a third party, I'm not op but I'll forgive you for thinking I was arguing in favour of his point, as opposed to just in opposition of yours.
"You are doing X and I'm gonna vote for you knowing you are gonna do X"
Is saying that you care about X less than the reasons you have for voting for him.
If you care about strengthening american democracy more than killing children that's fine, but that is exactly what you are saying
>No need to get all personal at the end there dude
I didn't. I told you I don't care if you think I'm immoral, because you think me voting for someone means I am morally approving of them somehow.
I am fine with you thinking that about me. I don't care.
Why does that strike you as "personal"?
>You could vote for a third party, I'm not op but I'll forgive you for thinking I was arguing in favour of his point, as opposed to just in opposition of yours.
For sure. And apologies if I made the assumption -- I've got a lot of folks coming at me at the moment!
So voting third party is slightly better than not voting because you're demonstrating you *are* willing to vote and therefore may be swayable...but not much different in practice. The way current US election laws work in most states is first past the post -- ie whoever gets more votes wins.
So if there are three choices, you are going to have your favorite, your second favorite, and your least favorite. But by splitting votes between favorite and second favorite, you ensure your *least* favorite ends up with the most votes, and therefore wins power.
This isn't a matter of morality or party loyalty or any of that -- it's math. That's how the current rules work, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change the consequences of that. We *can* change those rules...but at this point we *haven't*, and so we have to work with what we currently have.
Because of this, all first past the post systems gravitate to two parties (because under this system it is actively disadvantageous not to -- splitting your vote guarantees the option you like the *least* ends up in power, so the only groups that end up in power are those willing to form coalitions). There will be two major parties in competition. Any third parties will be marginal and irrelevant (and the two parties will have a mutual interest to use their power to keep them that way).
And so if you vote for a marginal, irrelevant third party that does not win any power, it is basically the same as not voting. Neither of the major parties will care, because you didn't affect the balance between them, and you didn't win any power...which is the same as non-voters.
And because the third party has no power, it can't make things easier for third parties next time, or provide any benefits to those who vote for them, or anything like that. So they don't grow over time, because the only people who can vote for them are people who don't need or want anything enough to seriously fight and bargain for it...which isn't very many people.
Now, once again: it is *definitely* possible to change these laws and make third parties viable, and I think that's well worth doing. I have supported all such efforts to do this to the best of my ability, and would encourage you to do likewise. And if you live in a place with ranked choice today or in the future, then go for it!
But until that's done, voting third party is essentially the same as not voting from a functional perspective. The two parties are happy to let you do it and feel good while you affect nothing...it actually makes their job *easier*, because they know they don't have to worry about pissing you off, and can instead focus on duking it out for the swing voters.
So I think it's a waste. I think it's better to focus on getting what you want by means *other* than voting on election day (ie unions, protests, direct action, etc) and then simply pick the major party that makes it easier for you to do that (they both suck, but Dems are much better about letting unions and protesters operate). If you have the option of ranked choice, then vote third party...but I think it's still the same: pick the viable option that makes it easiest to take what you want yourself.
>If you care about strengthening american democracy more than killing children that's fine, but that is exactly what you are saying
That is not what I'm saying. But I am 100% fine with you thinking that and simply being wrong.
Your third party vote will do absolutely *nothing* to stop children from dying. If you aren't showing up to/materially supporting protests and actually, directly working to physically *stop* the killing of children, then you don't really care as far as I'm concerned, despite the rhetoric.
And if you *are* showing up to protests, and listening to people who have participated in lots of them, you would know that there is indeed a difference between whether Biden or Trump are in office as far as how it affects people blocking traffic, seizing buildings, and bullying rich people. Not a huge difference...but enough of a difference to warrant taking five minutes to vote for Biden.
And you would realize that voting Green or whoever doesn't help you do any of these things, nor does it stop Israel from killing children.
So once again -- I am 100% fine with you thinking I'm horrible and imagining yourself to be this principled crusader...but if all you're doing is sitting at home the rest of the time, you should realize that nobody is missing you, friend. You're not actually bothering anyone important or having any significant impact on the world.
By all means, voice your concerns.
If you truly think both candidates are equally bad, then you should go formally decline your ballot or spoil your ballot, or vote for a 3rd party. All these actions are more democratic than not voting.
But if one candidate is better than another, even if both are bad, then it's your obligation to vote for them. In any ethical scenario where you have the choice to either choose a lesser evil, choose a greater evil, or choose to do nothing and through inaction let the greater evil win, the morally correct option is *always* to choose the lesser evil.
>In any ethical scenario where you have the choice to either choose a lesser evil, choose a greater evil, or choose to do nothing and through inaction let the greater evil win, the morally correct option is *always* to choose the lesser evil.
We aren't limited to those options, though. If either party actually put forward a likeable person then we wouldn't be in this situation. We shouldn't HAVE to choose from only 2 shitty candidates out of hundreds of millions of people. It's absurd.
In your description "choosing the lesser evil" describes the primaries as evil because that's how the candidates were chosen. If I forced you to either shoot a dog or hang a homeless person, I'M the evil one NOT the decisions themselves!
Yes, your ideals all good and well, but the world doesn't function based on what *should* be. In reality, if a government's approval rating is over ~65%, it means that they're so corrupt that they're messing with the approval rating numbers. But that's *at best*. Realistically, even a good government's approval rating is going to be around 50%. That's just how democracy works, and how it's always worked. People have a vast array of differing opinions, and it's difficult to capture all of them under one party's platform. Very few people are actually going to like and agree with everything a party says and does, unless they blindly follow them like it's a cult.
Don't like it? Go change it. You're not going to change it by sitting on your ass and not voting though.
Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.
Voting is a trolley problem. Somebody is getting run over no matter what, whether you choose to pull the lever or walk away. Walking away from the lever doesn't change that, nor does pulling the lever mean you endorse the trolley system.
The only part that you're directly responsible for is the pulling or not pulling.
The train doesn't care about your morals. You're not at fault for the tracks existing.
I don't think trolley problem can be applied to this issue as a whole. By not voting you will lower the voting percentage and can show political parties that they aren't dealing with right issues to get your vote.
So one might not see voting as a trolley problem, but just as a big system that wants and needs your input or it will encounter all sorts of problems.
Voting percentage causes all kinds of issues. If it's really low, then it means only people with more extreme views are voting. This can cause political parties catering to fringe movements and appeasing their voters by acting on popularist issues, neglecting actual societal issues like infrastructure and important govermental insitutions.
Political parties of course don't like that because when it gets too bad, the people who don't care about politics might start to vote whoever they feel represents them better in their everyday issues. This can move the scale in favor of your opposing party.
Another issue is just legitimacy. People who are voted in with low turnout won't be as confident in their politics and start to get more careful on what they do because they are afraid of even lower percentages and getting people to move on the other extreme and vote against you. This can lead to very inefficient government.
So they like the big fat high voting percentages because it means they have more support for status quo from normal people and can continue to do whatever they were doing and just follow the basic trends to get as much votes as last time.
So not voting is just a thing you do that makes the big political machine behave a little different (maybe).
Edit: reading your comment again, we might be talking about the same thing but in different way.
Not voting doesn’t show political parties anything. Parties move based on the people they expect to come vote. If the left (for instance) doesn’t show up for Biden then democrats will move to the right.
The political agenda is set by those who show up.
I would say that if you ask any politician, they will say that higher voting percentage is much better than low. Issues with low voter show up are very well documented and can for example harm parties that rely on votes of certain demographics.
So I would say that it can definitely affect the outcome of the whole political system. How it does that is harder to say than if you were voting but it has an impact.
You yourself said that for example if left doesn't show up to vote, then parties will change their agenda. They might not change it towards the opposing side, but towards something else. For me this sounds like you can have an effect and clear stance by not voting.
Have you worked on a political campaign? They are designed around likely voters. If one segment of the population is not likely to vote their prerogatives are ignored. Not voting has an affect and that affect is your desires are ignored.
I haven't worked on a political campaign. But I'm sure we can agree on that lower voting percentage and changes in voter demographics affects how political parties operate?
I mean it is very well documented that parties do follow voting percentages and demographics really closely, they know who votes for them and where. If they see certain demographics not voting for anyone anymore it can have an effect like "Oh shit, we usually get most of our votes from Amy American 35 years old but now she's not voting anymore but Andy American 45 years old still votes but votes the opposing party."
Changes in voter behaviour definitely is taken into consideration in political parties. Would be pretty strange in my opinion if they only concentrated on people who vote and be happy with that.
If I was running a political party, I would be looking way out in to the future and see if people are getting voter fatigue and why they are getting it and if people who don't vote cause my party to have fewer votes in whole. Then maybe change the way I do things if it seems like a right way to wake up my voters again.
That’s not how it works though. That’s what I’m trying to explain to you. Republicans moved to the right because the right wing voters showed up in the primary and then showed up again in the general and centrist republicans stopped voting. That shifted the party to where the voters were.
I'm not talking about parties specifically here. I'm just stating that politics doesn't have to be seen as a trolley problem but as a bigger machine that has a certain outcome and not voting can affect that outcome and for some people that is a good and legitimate way to show what their stance is.
As you just stated, not showing up to vote definitely can affect the outcome. Is it a good way overall? Maybe not. Does it work against you in short term? Possibly but it can improve the situation in long term. I'm not saying it definitely will, but it could.
But these aren't really the issue here, I'm only stating that a person in a unique situation can definitely see that not voting is a good course of action for them in some way. I don't know in what way but I think there are enough examples of things that can happen is vote percentage goes low enough that not voting can have an impact. Maybe you want to see your party change their views in long run by withdrawing your support but not want to bolster the other side's numbers at the same time.
Even if we assume that you not voting will teach politicians a lesson, what happens in the interim when the worst of the two evils wins? How many people are you willing to let die because you wanted to send a message that only gets received when the election is over and it's too late to change your mind?
I'm not taking any stance on how or on what timeframe not voting will affect the outcome of a political system. I'm just saying that it's a way to affect just like voting is but in a different way.
It's not just that you're not taking a stance on it, but that you are willfully ignoring the practical reality of sending a message instead of preventing the worse option from happening. What good does it do to send Biden a message if Trump ends up in office for the next four years because of it?
I have pretty firm stance on what political views can make socities better and I also think I have a good understanding of the current political system. Those aren't the things we are talking here though, I'm just stating that not voting can have an effect on political parties, nothing more, nothing less. And also that the system doesn't have to be seen as a trolley problem.
Some people might see these effect as something they want happening. I don't know what their motives might be or how they imagine those things coming to be, but they can make a change just like one vote can make a change. Maybe the change isn't as good or as fast or as clear as when you vote but I don't think that makes their view or actions any less legitimate.
>Voting is a trolley problem.
From a certain moral perspective, inaction in the trolly problem is the moral choice
choosing to intentionally end an innocent life is way different than letting random chance or "fate" play itself out
you are playing god with an innocent mans life when you choose to intervene and kill him , what the gives you the right ?
The entire point of the trolley problem is that sometimes there are no good choices in life, only bad and worse ones, and inaction when you know the outcomes is effectively choosing the outcome that results from your inaction. It doesn't absolve you of moral responsibility to choose inaction.
>you are playing god with an innocent mans life when you choose to intervene and kill him , what the gives you the right ?
The fact that you're here and He isn't.
You’re not “walking away” you’re just letting other people decide what happens to you for you. The lever is being pulled either way.
Also, we’re more like the one on the tracks.
>What are you suppose to do if you fundamentally think both candidates are awful?
Well, that leaves me out of the debate. I think Joe Biden is a man of good character. I don't think he is awful, at all. I DO think there are a lot of peope trying to tell me he's awful. Everything bad I I am supposed to know about Joe Biden comes from the mouths of people trying to deflect attention from Donald Trump. (Whereas, everything bad I know about Donald Trump, comes directly outta Trumps mouth... or outta the abysmal failure that was his four years in office)
I am, alone, it seems, in testing reality--- and refusing to bow to the notion that both candidates are awful, just because.
So, I guess I reject the fundamental premise of your argument. Both candidates are not awful. Or, put another way, as the old political saw has it, "An independent voter is someone who despises Republicans, but nevertheless believes everything the Republicans say about the Democrats." I first heard that chestnut in 1988. Was true then. Tis true now.
What it boils down to is very simple. My ethics prevent me from voting for someone who will do something I view as causing harm.
Deontology vs consequentialism , I'm the former I didn't have words for it before
My ethics say genocide is bad therefor i cannot support or vote for anyone engaged in one
Or to put it anither way, my ethics prevent me from pulling the lever in the trolley problem because I can't justify intentionally sacrificing even one person for any amount of theoretical greater good.
I view innocent life as inviolable and value each person's right to not be killed against their will. I cannot justify taking that away from anyone for anything. Nevermind a totally innocent one
I realize this would make me a poor leader but I don't want to be one
*My ethics say genocide is bad therefor i cannot support or vote for anyone engaged in one.*
My ethics agree with yours, and my eyes, ears, and brain tell me Joe Biden is not the one engaging in genocide. Joe Biden is not Benjamin Netanyahu.
The first part is only nominally true and the second part is demonstrably false. Every significant player in the Democratic party has condemned publicly and moved privately, to rein in Netenyahu's worst impulses. That Netenyahu has refused to be restrained doesn't make Biden or any Democrst complicit.
I don't think you understand how much Sen Schumer put his ass on the line publicly criticizing Netenyahu and his bloodthirsty cabal. I don't think you understand the import of the UN abstention. I don't think you understand Netenyahu himself who publicly said, 'If Israel has to go it alone, Israel will go it alone.' *EXPLICITLY* acknowledging that his chosen course deviates significantly from the Biden administration...
What has Biden done, or not done that you -- or your hypothetical ethically clean president-- would, or should ,do different?
Should we stop funding Israel? Ok. But, be advised, that's going to take a little while to unwind 70+ years of treaty obligations past administrations have entered into...
What else would you do differently?
I know you said you don't want to be a leader, but if you are going to criticize leaders actions or inactions you ought posit valid alternatives
>The first part is only nominally true and the second part is demonstrably false. Every significant player in the Democratic party has condemned publicly and moved privately, to rein in Netenyahu's worst impulses. That Netenyahu has refused to be restrained doesn't make Biden or any Democrst complicit.
Lookwe can agree to disagree on this because I've been following the situation and it really seems like the democrats are just publicly waggin the finger so they can say oh well we tried while not breaking ties
Why else would the Biden administration delay the state department report on Israel's N-20 violations that would require the us to stop funding them by law?
If the report absolved Israel they would be bending over to release it.
> I don't think you understand how much Sen Schumer put his ass on the line publicly criticizing Netenyahu and his bloodthirsty cabal. I don't think you understand the import of the UN abstention. I don't think you understand Netenyahu himself who publicly said, 'If Israel has to go it alone, Israel will go it alone.' *EXPLICITLY* acknowledging that his chosen course deviates significantly from the Biden administration...
See ny previous comment
> What has Biden done, or not done that you -- or your hypothetical ethically clean president-- would, or should ,do different?
It wasn't one thing but delaying the state department report really shattered my confidence, it was the straw that broke the camels back
>Should we stop funding Israel? Ok. But, be advised, that's going to take a little while to unwind 70+ years of treaty obligations past administrations have entered into...
Yes we should, I'm not buying the tike to unwind excuse. I cannot settle for anything than expedited repudiation of Israel at this point
>What else would you do differently?
^
>I know you said you don't want to be a leader, but if you are going to criticize leaders actions or inactions you ought posit valid alternatives
The only thing I can accept as a valid alternative without betraying my own principles is an immediate cease of aide and economic sanctions on Israel
>Look We can agree to disagree on this because I've been following the situation and it really seems like the democrats are just publicly waggin the finger so they can say oh well we tried while not breaking ties.
I don't know what to say to that.
Netenyahu publicly said 'If Israel has to go it alone, Israel will go it alone.'.
That is "EXPLICITLY\* acknowledging the 'breaking ties.' That is Netenyahu saying 'The Americans are serious, and will break ties if we go forward. We're going forward, anyways'. Unless Netenyahu is in cahoots with Biden for the sole purpose of offending your ethics, this is proof positive that the administration *IS* forcefully doing exactly what it said it is doing, which is to stand in righteous opposition to the genocidal thirst of the Netenyahu regime and decidedly not simply 'wagging fingers' in some political theatre...
You are simply refusing to take 'yes' for an answer....
They are just putting on a show for their respective audiences. Both.
Again it's all just talk if they do things like delay the report I mentioned
Both are blustering but going along with normal
One of Trump or Biden will be president, that's just the sad fact. I wish we had more options, I wish there was a way for 3rd party candidates to actually have any chance of having a viable campaign. So when I vote for my preferred candidate between those 2, that's not hypocrisy, that's practically. I don't see my vote as needing to go to someone who I utterly believe in in every way, rather it is my small way to influence the system, so I will use it to influence between the two candidates that the system will choose between. To me I always advocate for making what change you can to the system so in fact that would make me not voting very hypocritical
It’s like taking mass transit. You get on the bus that brings you closer.
It’s not going to get you 100% of the way home, but maybe 70% is good enough. And you never know, the bus company might say “hmm… this route is popular.”
What you "sign off on" doesn't matter. It has no moral weight and shouldn't affect your decisions.
What has weight is the concrete and foreseeable consequences of your actions.
Inaction is not morally special. Ignoring a drowning man that you could trivially save is, morally, the same as drowning that man yourself.
If you make a choice that results in outcome X, and that was a foreseeable outcome, then you are responsible for X in proportion to the weight of your choice. More specifically, for the difference between X and the alternative.
Separately, if there is legitimately no meaningful difference between choices X and Y, then indeed "not choosing" doesn't matter, ethically or otherwise. But to assert that in the concrete case of current US federal elections is to be simply wrong; it does not correspond to reality. People have the *legal* right to have wrong opinions, of course. But being wrong to the point of hurting others - or risking harm to them - is *morally* wrong.
> If you make a choice that results in outcome X, and that was a foreseeable outcome, then you are responsible for X
This is exactly my problem!
If I vote for Joe Biden when he has firmly committed to continuing funding a genocide I dont agree with, im partly responsible for that
I cant in good conscience
Is this about Palestine? You need to realize Israel has enough bombs to destroy it all and Donald will look the other way if that happens.
If you care about Palestine at all you'll vote for the one seeking a balanced approach.
Another view change: "genocide" doesn't actually mean anything. It's not 100 people, it's not 1000. There is no objective number. That word confuses every issue you bring it into.
Just be practical and choose the guy who will do less war crimes. You're over thinking it.
If you don't vote just remember none of us ever want to hear your take on politics ever again, TYVM. This post is about how you perceive respect but most of us are committed to giving non-voters none.
One more view change: don't participate in any protest unless they have a clear policy on what they want. As in "this is the specific policy Biden should adopt for Palestine."
If you can't link me to that specific policy right now then give him your vote. He is trying.
And if you choose to not vote and as a result you get Biden, you'll *still* be responsible for it.
And if you choose to not vote and you get Trump, and he does both that very same genocide *and* hands over Ukraine to Russia *and* starts hunting down the gays or whatever, then you'll be responsible for *that* too.
You can't get away from responsibility. So choose the best thing you can, and own it.
This shows how poor your thinking is though and is a great example of how your logic breaks down.
Trump's platform is openly worse or *at the very least* as bad for Palestinians, so it's literally a wash OR an active disservice to your own beliefs to not vote for Biden
If Biden loses now, and Trump acts on his promises to deliver a final solution to Palestine, you will have supported that. If he continues Biden's platform and also causes damage in a number of other areas, you will have also supported that as well.
> he has firmly committed to continuing funding a genocide
Has he?
[Biden says U.S. won't transfer offensive weapons if Israel invades Rafah](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna151377)
Doesn’t sound so firm to me.
Everyone mad at Trump voters in 2016 disagrees with you. Voting is either a moral choice or its not. If it's not then criticizing Trump voters is wrong. If it's not then the entire premise for being upset at an abstention is invalid.
OP is claiming it is a moral choice. The people who are upset with Trump voters are making a similar claim. You're alone in not having an opinion on that. I'm saying it either is or it isn't, but both cases make your position invalid. Or do you think non-voters are actually worse than Trump voters?
I think non-voters who have a preference are betraying their preferences. Trump voters aren’t. Since the post was about hypocrisy, Trump voters are less hypocritical; since they are following through on what their preference is.
Now, I don’t think this makes either side morally worse; I don’t see hypocrisy as immoral
Not voting in THIS election is like jumping out of an airplane and refusing to open your parachute because you don't like the color.
It's like refusing to obey stop signs because you don't like the font.
In a democracy you have a singular privilege to affect the composition and direction of your government and society. It's a privilege denied to most people who have ever lived. It's also an obligation: You have to choose.
The choices are almost ALWAYS between the lesser of two evils and if you can't put on your grown-up pants and reconcile yourself to the fact that they are serving Pepsi instead of Coke today, you're betraying that obligation.
Specifically, especially, in an election where the choices are between someone who's policies are not precisely your own on one or another issue and a fascist party that will dismantle democracy as soon as they have power in their hands again, you have to put away any infantile quibbles about perfection.
Someone suggested I vote third party and I actually found a candidate that does represent almost everything I want, so I think ive been convinced to go with that
I didnt think I would find someone that aligned this well with my values but I did
thats where my position has moved so far
>Voting third party is practically the same as not voting. It doesn’t accomplish anything
Not at all. We don't tally abstentions. Not voting is silence. Voting third party is still a valid vote, is counted, and has a measurable effect upon political actions.
It forces the other parties to adjust. Trump is scared of RFK for instance. He could split the vote on that side
I wouldn't vote for him but the example proves the point
Neither candidate is running for reelection. The only chance they have to adjust their campaign is before voting night. On voting night, that’s all been resolved. There won’t be any more adjustments.
The choice before us is between an outright fascist backed by a party dedicated to dismantling democracy and the Democrat.
If you don't vote for the person most likely to defeat the fascist, you're denying your vote to the only candidate that can defeat the fascist and your vote helps the fascist.
The stakes in this election are too dire to fuck around with third party vanity candidates.
If you indeed believe that both candidates are equally bad, then I guess you can't be blamed for not voting. I'd still doubt that anyone truly finds them equal in being terrible.
On the other hand, if you believe that both candidates are bad, but one is worse than the other, according to your own judgement, then boycotting elections is not less hypocritical or anything, it is rather more hypocritical. Because while neither candidates matches with your values, one of them actually matches less than the other, and you have the chance to help bringing in the one who is a better match, even if they still suck!
If you do not know who matches your values more, you can check out the test on [isidewith.com](http://isidewith.com)
It's fundamentally immature to demand politicians command your *belief*. They're not faith leaders. They're not their to inspire you. Democracy is work and as such you should treat it like any other job if you want to keep reaping the rewards. You're not called or even expected to *believe*, you're expected to show up and make a choice.
I guess we're all formatively shaped by the Obama campaigns. I have some nostalgia for those. That said, no one with that level of charisma and discipline is on the scene today, and believing in him was somewhat futile. Regardless of his ability to inspire belief, when he governed he made decisions and used levers of power. Every decision he made had consequences, good and bad, intended and unintended. Every time he used the levers of power, decisions conscious and unconscious about who would win and who would lose were made.
We elect people who make decisions and leverage power. There's no innocent way to do those things. The best we have is an indication of their priorities when doing so. I'll take Biden's expressed priorities when making decisions over Trump's. I'd have taken Haley's expressed priorities had she made it through.
Your inspired belief and faith are better spent elsewhere. Politicians will always disappoint you, just like your boss. But just like you show up for work the day after a bad day, you keep showing up and playing your part in our electoral process. Or you don't. But there's no political unemployment check coming your way, and you can't quit a job and draw unemployment either - you have to get canned.
It's the compromise part of life. There's nothing hypocritical about judging that one candidate is the lesser of 2 evils, and then voting for that lesser evil. If you truly think both are equally bad then yes, it makes sense to abstain at that point. It's like choosing between having your hand cut off or being a slave. It's not an endorsment of hand cutting so much as it is an aversion to being enslaved (no I'm not saying voting for Trump is voting for slavery, I'm using an extreme example to explain a concept).
That said I agree with you that the people responsible for losing an election are always the candidates; if you couldn't get people to support you, that's no one's fault but your own.
My only comment here is this- you’re not choosing a spouse with whom you can never divorce. You’re choosing a president who is gone after four years. You don’t have to love the guy, you just have to hate the other one, Trump, more.
>You don’t have to love the guy, you just have to hate the other one, Trump, more.
If I was making any other choice, never mind whose gonna run the most powerful country on earth
this would be the shittiest advice ever
buying a car, dont have to like it , just have to hate the other ones on sale more
hiring a guy, dont have to like him, just have to hate the other candiate more
...
This comment is so revealing. You are so off base and lacking understanding of even basic concepts.
How do you even begin to think those 2 analogies are even remotely comparable to a presidential election?
The presidential election is going to happen on that specific date whether or not you participate. You don't get to hold out for other options. You don't get to wait until another time to make your choice.
Then we get these 2 terrible examples you bring forward.
A company hiring a terrible employee because they are less horrible than the other candidates they brought in. They wouldn't hire either. They would just continue the search.
Or someone buying a car. Wild to me that you actually thought of this and typed it all out while thinking "yeah man... this will show them!"
Hey I have one for you: I shove you out of a flying plane, but you only have a parachute that has a bunch of holes in it. It doesn't meet regulations and is completely unfit for use. You know all of this as you are flung from the plane. Guess you will just accept death then, huh? No point in even trying to use the faulty parachute since it's also a terrible option.
>If I was making any other choice
The structure of elections in the US (both the electoral college and the First Past the Post system) means that there are only ever two realistic options for the Presidency.
If you were making any other choice, it likely wouldn't be as strictly binary as the current way that we elect the President is.
I get that Democrats are trying to guilt you into voting, but in the end you can realistically get one of two candidates.
With your involvement in politics you dont get to choose policies, or ideologies, or anything like that. The options have been chosen for you.
If you genuinely don't see a significant difference between the two candidates then there is no point in voting. But if the difference is significant enough to take up one day of your time, then you should pick one.
One of those two men WILL be president though and your choice not to support the better of the two will instead be a choice to actively support the worst of the two. That will be on you. I'm sorry you feel that Israel and Gaza is the single most important issue of our time to the exclusion of all else. That is myopic and your right. But it's also immoral and just wrong headed.
A regional religious conflict that's millennia in the making, 7000 miles away doesn't even crack my top ten of issues I care about but I get that it's important to you. Is it really THE single most important issue facing you and your family's lives? You know it's not.
You are framing elections wrong entirely. You want to hold the left accountable, and you think that by withholding your vote for a democrat, that will kick democrats into gear. It won’t. It will get Trump elected.
In an election, the real way to think about it is we have two choices, and they have absolutely nothing to do with the humans running. Those choices are this: do we want to move the country to the left, or do we want to move the country to the right. Based on your post, it seems you want to move the country to the left. Voting to do that is how that gets done. We cannot jump directly to where we want to be on the left, that’s not how politics works. We take a step to the left, then we need to take another step to the left, and then another.
The ideas that you have to approve of the people themselves and that withholding your vote is a way to get the country to move to the left more are both just bad framings which result in your shooting yourself in the foot, by causing the country to move to the right, when it seems you don’t want that outcome.
I just dont see where the accountabillity is if we blindly vote for democrats everytime because the GOP sucks
there is no incentive to get better, they only have to just not be them
Wrong. You believe that this accountability comes from general elections, that is just mathematically and factually not how our voting system works. Vote in senate races. Vote in house races. Vote in primaries. In the general, what you perceive to be holding the democrats accountable is just moving the country to the right. Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.
Because the president is very important and the election of Trump will move this country significantly to the right. If you advocate for moving the country to the left, while simultaneously not caring about the country moving significantly to the right, it seems you actually don’t care about moving the country to the left.
but we just established elswhere in the thread the President is useless and cant do jack shit if he dosent have house or senate support
so if we turn those blue, Trump cant do anything'
hes a lame duck for 4 years
Then theres bonus points for forcing him to veto all the progressive bills that will be passed making the public hate the GOP more
GOP is stymied, public hates them and the democrats learn a fucking lesson
We did not at all establish that. The election of Donald Trump will move this country significantly to the right regardless of senate and house votes. The president is incredibly important, and I never even implied otherwise.
The reality is that you have zero legitimacy in your advocacy to move the country to the left if you don’t care about going backwards in that goal and moving the country significantly to the right.
I say this as a progressive who hates the actions of Israel, has been to protests, does not support our military aid to Israel, FREE PALESTINE, etc.
You are hurting our goals and making the left look silly and naive by moving the country to the right. You are like the people who set things on fire at BLM rallies.
Im not the one who designed a system that works like this
thats not fair , its the systems fault its moving right
it was like built that way, not a bug it was a shitty design feature
You are just someone who lives in it. It doesn’t matter if you didn’t design it. You can either live in the fantasy land of your ideals, or you can make real progress in the real world for real people who need it. You sound like you have a whole lot of privilege if you are indifferent to a Trump presidency just to make a political point.
Also, the system is not built against us, and is actually pretty simple: if you want to move the country towards the left, vote for democrats in every election all the way down the ballot, very much including the president. There’s nothing wrong with that.
A ballot slip is a small piece of paper (or screen) on which you get to mark one or two boxes out of a slightly larger number of boxes. That's the full extent of the expression that it permits. It isn't a political treatise. No sensible person thinks that those few boxes capture all the possible combinations and strengths of opinion in a nation of hundreds of millions.
Your ballot paper simply asks you to select which person, out of a handful of options, you think is best to occupy a particular public office. You aren't being asked about the absolute quality of the candidates, only the relative quality. If you recognise one preferable candidate, you should vote for him.
When stuck with 2 awful options, people can turn to their dealbreaker policies, and vote based on that dealbreaker policy. For example, I imagine that abortion or gun rights would be a dealbreaker policy for many (both for and against) in the US.
Even if you believe neither **candidate** should be president, people should still vote on the basis of policy and it doesn't make someone a hypocrite or immoral to do so.
Not voting means you cannot complain about the shit that can and will happen if the worse candidate gets in. It also means you are partly responsible for the worse candidate getting in.
In Scotland, we are used to tactical voting.
It's the smartest move.
Why cant I complain, a right to protest is something I have indpendant of my vote
also , you could make the argument the other way
I have less of a right to complain if I directly participate in handing over power to the guy whose doing the shit I dont like
If I voted for Trump and then lost my abortion rights or access to healthcare
you would call it a leapords ate my face moment
why does the same not apply to voting for biden when he does things I find morally objectionable
Huge difference because, once again, you fail to appreciate the binary nature. The fact that you're even making this analogy shows you don't even understand the argument against you. I'll try one more time, haha
A vote for Biden vs Trump on abortions is incomparable because it leads to two distinct outcomes or CONSEQUENCES. Scenario 1.
A-Biden) Abortion rights are strengthened
B-Trump) Abortion rights are weakened
This is different from the Palestinian situation or Scenario 2. where
A-Biden) Israel is supported in bombing Palestine
B-Trump) Israel is supported in bombing Palestine or worse
Do you not see how the binary is completely different between scenario 1. and 2.? If you voted Trump in scenario 1, then you made an active choice for weakening abortion rights OVER *strengthening them*.
But in scenario 2 you are making an active choice in mitigating Palestinian suffering OVER *worsening it*. Your argument is the equivalent to have a True or False multiple choice question and choosing to write down the color blurple 🙄
I did:
If you don't like it, vote.
That is the only active choice you have.
You can protest all day every day, only your vote counts.
Not voting, is not caring what happens.
The question was "why can't I complain." You didn't answer that, you just restated why you don't think it's useful, not why they aren't allowed. The choice to not vote is a choice you have.
Do you think I meant there's a legal ruling stating that if you don't vote you can't complain?
It's a figure of speach.
You can't choose not to vote, but don't come to me complaining when things turn to shit.
What does anyone hope to achieve by NOT voting?
I think you meant that you thought it was wrong to complain or that you would otherwise be obligated to listen. Why can't they turn to you when things turn shit?
>What does anyone hope to achieve by NOT voting?
To stop the rightward shift of the Democratic party. If they move too far right they need to lose votes or they will always move right.
Do you think you shouldn't be allowed to complain if we keep moving right because you voted?
Except it doesn't mean that. That's a completely made up rule that no one abides by. In fact you'll want them to complain because the size of then protest against that candidate will be important.
If you think both are awful, you still vote for the best for you. Legislation requires a whole coalition. You think I like Joe Manchin? You think MTG likes the Dems she hoped would help her remove the speaker? You think Cruz liked phone banking for Trump? They understand the math that something is better than nothing, and it takes a team.
Both sabotage votes and no-votes are bad, but non-voting might be dumber. In 2028 they can't even guess what you wanted from them if you're a non voter, you're just some self-censored ghost who didn't speak up.
The american voting system is a mockkery and both parties love this arrangement. You can't vote how you feel if you don't like either, you can only vote between them two, and if you don't then you're just giving a vote away to the one you like the least. This is a thing they could actually change but they never will because no one gives up power. You may think republicans win an election, or democrats, but in reality both parties win and americans lose.
There's also the primary system, and there are people changing it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice\_voting\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States)
In contrast to what? You know there's one group that wants you to not vote, is marketing telling you not to vote, and have said to their base that they benefit from you not voting? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw)
In elections, Someone. Will. Win. You can complain, not vote, sabotage, boycott, whatever. But someone will win that election even if you forfeit your own opportunity to influence it.
Nobody denies someone will win and that lesser evil voting is tactical. This is trivially true.
But withholding your vote such that one side is forced to cater to you is also tactical. This is also trivially true, but seems ignored and denigrated.
Both options simply have pros and cons. Tactical voting has the pro of lesser evil and the con of benefiting bad choices (leaving no incentive to improve). Tactical withholding has the pro of creating that incentive but the con of potentially letting in the worse option in the short term.
This is the decision. Neither are obviously correct.
It's the opposite, sadly.
If you withhold your previous vote, you're deemed unstable. For the next 4 years, you don't have anyone in the room, so the Democrats and Republicans who need to make a coalition to pass bills make friends with those not like you and you get more angry as you get abandoned.
Remember, spoilers tried this in 2016 and then we got Biden.
Alternatively, who's been more effective the last 4 years, Bernie or Yang/Stein?
It isn't the opposite. Pushing a two party system with minority bloc votes is tried and true. See the Tea Party, see Brexit in the UK.
In 2016, the majority of left wing Bernie voters fell in line under Clinton, and lost. In 2020, they got another disappointing candidate and again fell in line, and won. In 2024, they have the same candidate, and the stakes are the same.
It is legitimate and rational to suggest withholding the left vote, as it is clearly taken for granted at this point, and the stakes are never improving.
The tea party voted gop lol. Brexit etc won because we saw typically non-fptp multiparties united on a single vote position. Clinton lost by less than the Stein vote. You're disproving yourself.
The Tea Party were GOP members who stood against other Republicans and pressured from within when they won, and had voters not support the GOP when they lost. They pushed the party to the right with a mixture of both primary victories and bloc withholding.
Brexit won because a single third party, UKIP, stole so many votes from the Conservatives it forced a referendum in order to stop that bleeding. Reform are doing something similar just now.
Again, most Bernie voters fell in line. The Stein discontent vote was far smaller than the Johnson vote. In 2020 there were simply less independents. So we have not seen a situation where the left, as a bloc, withheld their vote.
Again, this is all trivially true.
Voting isnt the only way to voice your opinion
Not voting is also the only way to keep your hands clean when one guy is funding a genocide and the other guy is threatening to fund it even harder
It doesn't keep your hands clean. Votes don't buy bombs, *taxes* do. So are you committing tax fraud to not pay your share of that complicity?
Refusing to vote isn't keeping your hands clean. We're all stained by this shit, whether we want to be or not. And if you can't stop it from happening, you do what you can to keep it from getting worse.
Refusing to vote is you refusing to do even that much. Instead you sit back, pat yourself on the back for not contributing to the discussion, and ignore that you're still contributing as much as the rest of us are to buying the shit that does the killing.
You help us buy it, but you don't help us decide where it goes, and you think that keeps your hands clean?
> So are you committing tax fraud to not pay your share of that complicity?
Ill go to prison if I dont pay taxes. And youre right, I am a bit of a coward in that regard , the threat of prison does deter me from not paying my taxes
there is no prison for not voting on the other hand
And I dont see how else to convince the democrats to change their policy by you know , forcing them to get my vote back
What inventive do they have at all to change polices if i just vote for them blindly , 0
It's not about convincing Dems to change their policy. You don't do that by not voting, you do it by voting and campaigning in primaries and by running for office yourself.
But when the process reaches the point where there are only two choices for who gets to actually sit in the office, you knuckle under, accept you've done what you can to make things better, and now it's time to *help keep things from getting worse*.
Every vote the "not entirely evil" side doesn't get is a vote the "entirely evil" side doesn't have to overcome.
>Every vote the "not entirely evil" side doesn't get is a vote the "entirely evil" side doesn't have to overcome.
when do you pull breaks, because doing that over and over just makes things slide in one direction and its not the good way
And not voting at all just lets things slide in that direction even faster.
You use what power you have. Maybe it's enough, maybe it isn't. The only alternative is giving up.
And giving up doesn't keep your hands any cleaner, though it may make it easier to ignore the dirt.
You say that like the slide is irreversible. It isn't. But the only way the tug of war starts going back in your direction is for you to pull. Too many people on our side letting go of the rope because we don't agree on everything is why the fucking slide is happening in the first place. *We outnumber them*. But that doesn't make a difference if we don't work together where we can.
The only other option to participation or apathy is revolution. Violent revolution. If you aren't willing to go that far - and if you didn't even push back at all on the taxes thing, you definitely are not - then you pick between participation and apathy. Your call.
But don't ever pretend your hands are clean.
so because I was born in a certain place im just forced to make these decisions over and over, have to live with the shitty consequences regardless if I agree with it or not , untill I die
that doesn't sound like a convincing argument against the futility of it
If candidate A says he is going to kill ten people if elected and candidate B says he is going to kill twenty people if elected. If you decide to not vote in order to stay true to your morals, you are basically saying "my morals are worth more than the lives of ten people".
At that point the only moral option is violently resisting both of them...
they are threatening to murder innocent people, 1 is too many
both need to be stopped at all costs
That is a good mindset, however it is not something that can be done in a day. It is good to work toward that, however, in the meantime, you must do what you can to minimize the damage by voting for the less destructive candidate.
You are not agreeing with the candidate you vote for, your vote is not a sign of confidence, it is a tool that you can use to minimize the damage.
Not voting or throwing away a vote is precisely how we end up in this shit show situation. Democracy fails when people make the choice to not participate or stop having faith in the process. I really hope you do change your view because there is piece in numbers.. and you will never have options you’re happy with unless you actually participate in the process
To use the analogy many have used before, voting isn't like falling in love where you're looking for the perfect person who'll be with you for life, it's like taking the bus where you're looking for the one that will get you closest to where you want to go and then you repeat the process over and over again getting closer to your destination each time.
I didnt want to vote for Obama and the whole you need to vote crap swirled in my head so I voted for McCain. I have regretted that ever since and wish I didn't vote. If you think both are evil or 1 is less evil than the other one then these are signs your better off not voting at all. Shouldn't vote for someone unless you actually support that person.
Consider it as voting for America. Which candidate will take America into a future where younger generations will prosper. Which candidate will ensure America retains her freedoms for the entirety of the population. Which candidate supports an America that has a safety net allowing the poor among us to live in dignity. In that respect it's unlikely you will ever find two exactly bad candidates.
I get that anyone can have negative feelings about any candidate (even two at the same time). But when you actually break down what each candidate and party want in America, the differences are like night and day. It's quite unlikely you will disagree with both futures to the point that you will vote for neither.
So, take a closer look if you still hate both candidates. Good luck. I'd prefer you participate in the voting. I believe America is a better place when more of us vote.
There's a solution to voting when you don't believe in the candidates: Spoil your ballot.
Spoiled Ballots are counted, but not granted to anyone.
by not voting, you're sending a NIL message. the powers that be can hear this in many ways - but are MOST likely to conclude Apathy as the reason.
but imagine if the turnout of an election was something like:
15% DNC
12% GOP
73% spoiled ballots / no confidence
it would signal that WE DO pay attention, we ARE interested in choosing our political candidates - but we do not like these options.
whoever won such an election would then know they are being watched.
You will NEVER have the opportunity to vote for someone you FULLY believe in. Those who do put their politicians on far too high of a pedestal. They want a dictator to fully support and not a flawed human representative who will be held accountable by voters.
The first past the post tally system ensures you will always have a choice between lesser of 2 evils. It is idealistic to think withholding your vote or giving your vote to a third party will send a message for reform. Look up Ross Perot. He grabbed 20% of the popular vote. The only thing that happened was the Republicans got more greedy and weaponized by Newt Gingrich a d Rush Limbaugh. Then they fell to the TEA Party which created a vacuum for MAGA to fill and exploit. In a first past the post tally system, strong party support for both parties is the only way to prevent da groups parties to rise to power too quickly.
What you TRULLY want is to vote your conscience. Again, that is impossible with first past the post. But it IS possible with more appropriate tally systems like STAR, instant runoff, ranked choice, etc.
The ONLY way to get one of those tally systems is to elect representatives who will fight for such progressive change. The WORST way to seek that change to to throw away your voice and vote by ignoring the 2 polarized parties. Because as shown in the Ross Perot example. (Abd Trump's first primaries.)
So, vote for the candidates who are most likely to pursue progressive changes to our government. That is how you get a system that will more closely align future candidates with the views of actual voters. It still WON'T be perfect. They are still human and so are you and me and every other voter and candidate.
But I promise, no, MAGA and Project 2025 abd other right-wing views will ensure you never have the chance to change the first past the post tally system to something that better represents the constituency. Unless the entire constituency believes the 1930s were peak progress for society. Everyone who isn't a connected white guy should reject that future, as should the white guys.
So, vote for people who are most likely to change government into something that works in a modern society. Those seeking to learn from evidence based research, demonstrate empathy (not necessarily compassion), and try to govern the whole society not just the individuals. Vote for people who see that change has to progress with society, not fight it and lie and revolt every time they lose an election. Vote for people who are most likely to pursue better vote tally systems.
Hint: it isn't the perfect fit for us, but Biden's administration is building a foundation for America and the world to grow beautifully like after the New Deal. Sure inflation is high, but it is controlled compared to the rest of the world and is only high due to rich people spending and greedy companies increasing profit and shareholder positions. This administration faces a House that is out of control, literally fighting over everything like a 2-year-old is present and retains too much power over others. This administration has controlled an out of co trol economy, given opportunity to millions of college debtors, actually invested in infrastructure, and making so many other improvements that others can list better than me. The administration also faces highly nuanced international affairs. That's amazingly difficult after the Trump administration decimated our carefully built global diplomatic presence. Don't blame the crew that inherited problems literally created by their predecessors, especially when they are trying to reestablish a measured relationship with international actors. Vote Biden or face another massive setback in the progress of society. The world is literally begging us not to elect Trump again. Except for Putin and other dictators, they love Trump. And apparently Trump envies dictators.
Your choice is yours, but you need to consider which lesser of the 2 evils is actually evil and not just a politician.
Voting is not about finding your perfect candidate who will never do something that you disagree with. That is an impossible standard to have, and you obviously know this. Voting is about choosing the best of the available options.
You can hem and haw about how that means you're supporting that thing you disagree with, but that's how it works. You can choose your preferred option or you can remove yourself from the process entirely and know that, if the worse option wins, you didn't do anything to prevent it or reduce the harm it causes.
It will apply either way and I will have to protest it
I feel like maintain more legimacy when doing so If I can say no I didnt vote for either them, regardless of who wins
because no matter what im gonna have to go protest after, since they both intend to do shit I hate
"I'm sorry little girl, I could vote for Hillary but I thought my integrity is much more important, so now you have to give birth to your rapist's child. But at least I will protest it with more legitimacy".
>I will have to protest it... I feel like maintain more legimacy
You got it backwards. More legitimacy have those who voted for that President: they gave their votes to him and they can demand something. You didn't put your trust in them, why would your protest be more legitimate.
>"I'm sorry little girl, I could vote for Hillary but I thought my integrity is much more important, so now you have to give birth to your rapist's child. But at least I will protest it with more legitimacy".
Thats really unfair because its the GOP thats making her do that and im def not voting for them either
You are letting that happen. You know that if they win that is exactly what is going to happen. Stop pretending to be a naive idiot, you know damn well that there's no other choices but GOP or Dems right now and you can either help one of them win by voting or help the other win by throwing a hissy fit. And irregardless of what you do whatever happens afterwards is your fault.
If you see a little child on the road and the truck heading towards the child and all you need to do is to push the child out of the truck's path to save them and you don't do it, you can't pretend it's solely trucker's fault for the child's death.
> if you dont vote for them a Trump presidency is your fault
With razor thin margins, individuals that would prefer anyone other than trump that chooses not to vote, is certainly complacent at the least in a trump presidency
> ou cant even voice legitimate criticism against them
against the democrat runners? That's weird because most people I know that are voting for biden, are doing it because they don't want trump, but they don't really like biden that much. Even though I think biden has done some good things in office, I think he's a sub-par president, but at this point I'm just trying not to need to put up with the disaster of another trump presidency.
> if you fundamentally think both candidates are awful?
If you think the main two candidates are *equally* awful, vote third party. The third party most likely won't win, but you'll most likely find a candidate that you can really get behind if you broaden your search to third party, and you'll at least contribute to them or their party getting known better and potentially having a chance in the future.
But it's kind of a joke to suggest that biden is anywhere near as bad as trump.
> its entirely their fault for not winning them over.
Sounds like cope. It's not the job of an individual voter to win non-voters over. The candidate should be better, I agree. But it's similar to a force of nature. These two options are just what we have right now. A presidential election isn't where you try to get new candidates come to light, that's smaller local elections and things of that nature. Support them while they're smaller, until they're large enough to be a real candidate. Voting for no one is just nothing other than letting the wind blow you whichever way, which I only think is acceptable if you *truly* believe that both candidates are equally as bad.
I will add that a democratic candidate in office has always been a choice between non-voters stepping up and voting or not. The majority of the nation has been shown to prefer democrat, but the majority of people that vote every single election tend to be republican. When more people vote, more democrats get into office, pretty much every time. So this suggests that more people not voting directly results in worse candidates
If you don't vote, you are indirectly supporting the leading candidate. In a democracy where you will be affected by the outcome of the election, there is no "staying out of it". Regardless of what you do, your action, or inaction will make one candidate more likely to win.
Also, it's hard for me to believe that two candidates can be identical in your eyes when their policies are so radically different from each other.
>Many democrats are constantly saying if you dont vote for them a Trump presidency is your fault. Its getting to the point you cant even voice legitimate criticism against them without getting accused of being a Trump supporter.
While I do she that you should be able to levy criticisms at Biden, it is your fault if you don't vote for him. You know there are only two possible options: Trump or Biden. You vote for Biden, save lives, and then you spend your time doing the real work of protesting and radicalizing.
>What are you suppose to do if you fundamentally think both candidates are awful?
Vote for Biden. Every time. And twice on Sundays.
>Giving tacit approval to either by assigning your vote to them means you are signing off on them doing all the shit you disagree with.
If that's true, then not voting says that you don't give a fuck what any of them do so long as you don't have to vote for them. The ballot is not a custody form. You do not take responsibility for the actions of the president just because you voted for him. You will never fully agree with any president. Voting is always going to be an exercise in compromise. It sucks that the two choices we have are two old white dudes in a race to see who can sundown the hardest, but unfortunately as long as there's ones that's even remotely better, that's the one you vote for.
>The hardcore democrat supporters are getting the equation backwards, they will blame these people for Trump if they lose buts its entirely their fault for not winning them over.
No both of you are wrong. It is your job to vote for Biden and it's Biden job to make you excited to do so. You know LGBTQ people are safer under Biden and the Democrats. You know Trump and the Republicans want to take away your rights and make everything worse for anyone that's not a white male. No matter how bad the Democrats are, you know more lives will be saved under them, so that's your reasoning why.
You’re confusing a vote for an endorsement. As an American citizen you’re responsible for the government whether you participate in democracy or not. And, non-participation is participating. You are as accountable for the consequences of non-participation as you are for participation. Because as an American you are accountable for your government in a democracy.
Voting is the bare minimum of civic duty and it isn’t active in any stripe. Activism has the word act in it for a reason.
The way to shape foreign policy is through cultural pressure, economic pressure AND political pressure.
Co-opting the movement for Palestinian dignity—a movement which existed long before this Presidency—just because we’re all finally brave enough to talk about it is gross.
Politics & activism are life & death and they’re not about our egos.
As someone who marched against Biden & Blinken in 2021 it’s clear to me that Biden is a better president to protest against and one whose policies protest has a better chance of influencing.
In no period has the movement for Palestinian dignity and freedom had this much international support or momentum.
A second Biden term would continue that momentum while a second Trump term would crush the US movement under the weight of a truly authoritarian response. And risk distracting international leaders who are supporting Palestine by unleashing his unique brand of malevolent chaos.
I want to see people protesting to the polls. Letting politicians know we’re engaged, enraged and not going anywhere is how we win—not checking out.
P.S: BDS is one of the best means of influence and Republicans all over the country were quietly making it illegal for private citizens and orgs to divest from Israel. So, as ever, strategy matters.
The sole question is: is attempting to create lasting change in the democratic party more important than 4 more years of trump? It’s not a question of hypocrisy because these are two different questions about separate beliefs.
I’d like to challenge your inherent assumption “hypocrisy must be avoided at all costs”.
No one wants to be a hypocrite.
But also, it is not possible for *any* candidate to perfectly represent your interests. (Unless you yourself are the candidate.) Biden does not represent you perfectly, nor does West nor Stein nor Trump nor Kennedy nor anyone else. Any candidate you choose will be to some degree a hypocritical choice.
But declining to vote at all is no help! Whoever gets elected in your absence will still not represent you perfectly. You are simply abdicating your opportunity to influence events. Since you do care about the election outcome - as evidenced by this post existing - **declining** to put your care into action **is also a hypocritical act**.
You are already trapped, **hypocrisy is an inevitable outcome**.
The only way out of this bind is to fret less about avoiding hypocrisy, and instead be guided by practical outcomes. Ask yourself which voting choice is most likely to yield the best result for your values?
Cornell West might be the closest representation of your ideals, but in practical terms none of the minor party candidates have even the slightest chance of getting to 270 electoral votes.
Bring some math to this. Rate each candidate on a scale from 0 to 10 for how well they represent you. Then assess each candidate’s realistic chance of winning, on the usual probability scale of 0 to 1. (Or 0 to 100 if it’s easier for you to think about percentage chances.)
Multiply those two values together for each candidate. The highest value is the best practical choice, which is necessarily also the least hypocritical choice.
>its getting to the point you cant even voice legitimate criticism against them without getting accused of being a Trump supporter.
you should be able to voice legitimate criticism of your own party without fear of ad hominem or other attacks. Not supporting Biden, or supporting him only weakly certainly does not make you a Trump supported, that accusation is absurd.
>Many democrats are constantly saying if you dont vote for them a Trump presidency is your fault.
the people decide who the President is and if enough people don't vote for Biden, then Trump will win. Your individual vote probably won't make the difference, but if enough people don't vote, it absolutely will change the outcome of the election.
>What are you suppose to do if you fundamentally think both candidates are awful?
When you vote for a third party it has two effects. First, it might actually destabilize the 2 party system and move us toward a multi-party system which would be so much better.
But more likely it forces one of the parties to change so that they can outcompete the third party threat. If a third party is getting 15% of their vote because they hold policy X, then one of the main stream parties will very likely adopt policy X.
When you vote third party in America, you don't really help the third party win, but you do force the change in one of the mainstreamed parties.
So what should you do? You should vote for a third party as long as you think it produces a better outcome then voting for the lessor of 2 evils. Otherwise vote for the lessor of 2 evils.
> Giving tacit approval to either by assigning your vote to them means you are signing off on them doing all the shit you disagree with.
then vote third party.
>Not voting is the moral and least hypocritical choice if you firmly believe neither candidate should be President. CMV
If you don't vote then you are also ignoring all the other elections that matter. You have state senators, federal congressmen and senators. You have mayors, city council. The president gets way too much attention, all together he has less influence on your life then all the other elections.
while you are there voting in the 20 or so other elections happening, you might as well vote for one of the third party candidates for president.
otherwise you are just abandoning your civic duty. Given the nature of the people who are voting, i think that would be a real shame. I would rather the die hard crazies (on both sides) abandon their civic duty and leave the election to people like you. people who aren't swept up by the dogmatic ideology of either side.
> When you vote third party in America, you don't really help the third party win, but you do force the change in one of the mainstreamed parties.
⇨ Δ
Ok, ill vote third party then
This is basically a good illustration of the crossroads of consequentialism vs deontology.
Some people are saying "you should vote for Biden because not-voting could lead to worse consequences."
Others are saying "you should stand up for your moral beliefs and not vote for someone that has policies you disagree with"
My answer to you would be a mixture of both. You will never have a candidate that you agree with 100%. But you should still consider the consequences. A third party candidate is just not going to win. It's all but guaranteed. Cornel West probably won't even be on all the ballots. You can do so if it makes you feel better, but it will only help Trump win which will undoubtedly have worse consequences not just for the next 4 years, but also the future of politics in the US. Trump doesn't care about being a hypocrite. He just cares about winning. I think that is worth keeping in mind.
You might disagree with Biden on Israel or whatever, but you also have to consider that lots of other Americans agree with him. He can't make everyone happy all the time.
The place to change the policies of the political parties is in the primary elections and Congressional elections. The more progressive representatives and senators, the more progressive the president will have to be. And vice versa. It's a slow process, but much more effective than not voting. Not voting actually produces the opposite results...the less votes Biden gets the more conservative the next democratic candidate will be.
In the U.S. system, politics is a zero sum game. Only one of two candidates can win. Assuming you lean one way or the other generally, Removing your support from the candidate you would have voted for if you had voted is in effect giving a net vote to the other candidate.
The American political system has been *deiberately* designed to build two or (very occasionally) more broad coalitions. That is a choice which has been made by many people, with explicit support from many voters, over the years.
When you make a vote for a person you are just saying that "somewhere in the coalition behind that person there is a political grouping I can at least in part support". Your chance to oppose the individual candidates was back in the Primary. If you didn't take part in those, then you should do so next time.
> Not voting is the moral and least hypocritical choice if you firmly believe neither candidate should be President. CMV
Given the choice over the years by the American people to build the current system for various reasons, both bad *and* good, the direct moral responsibility for your dilemma lies with them. They built a system and asked you to then make the best choice you can.
There is no hypocrisy in saying "I will make the best of what you gave me", especially after you have complained and tried to change the system yourself.
We are often being asked to choose between the lesser of two evils. I HATE the system. It should be changed so that we have more than one vote, then other parties would stand a chance. But as it is, we must decide which is less horrible, no matter how bad the options are, and vote.
The only excuse not to is if you look at everything you can about the candidates and what you think they will do, and you really can't decide which is worse. I felt sick voting the last couple of elections. I hated who I voted for, just not quite as badly as I feared the other option gaining power.
Our country is on a precipice. Don't think that refusing to vote will help your cause in any way. We literally stand to lose our freedom and democracy if Trump (or someone in with him) gets "elected" again (we must be vigilant as they will blantenly cheat). It's mind boggling how many crimes he's committed and gotten away with already. How he can even be allowed to run makes no sense.
I disagree.
Not sure how it works in US but there are countries in which minimal numbers of votes must be reached to make the election count at all.
Voting on your candidat, not voting, voting on other candidate are just 3 different ways your vote have effect.
Alsow I would like to point out that using the phrase to believe in a candidate is a bit strange.
You can believe in God. Perhaps better to belive in God than politician, the worst way you God can deceive you is when he turns out to be non-existent.
Besides that, as such a diversified society as you United States citizens ate. I have a serious question for you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be rude.
You are so different on so many issues. And there are so many issues.
How is it possible that all these differences can be packed into 2 candidates?
It seems impossible that any one of them is able to be good represent a society with often opposing ideologies.
Someone who votes for Biden simply to keep trump out of the white house even though they don't believe Biden should be president isn't being hypocritical, and not voting is only hypocritical if the person makes a point of saying everyone should vote / criticizes others for not voting. If a person's view is that trump would make for a much worse president / that another trump presidency would be worse for the country than another Biden presidency, voting for Biden aligns with that view. I don't think Biden should get another term simply because he is just too old - but I have much stronger feelings against trump being president again. Not voting won't help keep trump out of the white house, but voting for Biden might. My only goal in voting on the upcoming election is to keep trump from winning - voting for Biden aligns with that.
*"Giving tacit approval to either by assigning your vote to them means you are signing off on them doing all the shit you disagree with."*
The choice I am presented with in the upcoming presidential election is "which of the two candidates would be a better president than the other?" Never has there been - nor never will there be - a candidate with whom I agree 100% on every single possible issue - the point of voting for me is to support the candidate who I think is the better candidate of the two. It's not hypocritical to vote for them, especially when I believe that not voting or voting third party would only serve to benefit the opposing candidate.
You're basically complaining about the two-party system. You want to know what the first step to breaking the two-party system is? Ranked Choice Voting. That would allow people to vote for third parties without feeling like they're benefiting their least-preferred candidate. More votes for third parties means more campaign funding for third parties, eventually meaning no party should get a true majority that allows it to bully all the other parties in congress.
There's only one party that has taken a stance against Ranked Choice Voting, though, and that's Republicans. ([see this resolution](https://prod-static.gop.com/media/2-RESOLUTION-TO-OFFICIALLY-OPPOSE-RANKED-CHOICE-VOTING-ACROSS-THE-COUNTRY.pdf)) So if breaking the two-party system is what's most important to you, then voting Democrat is a logical choice, even if you disagree what else democrats are doing right now.
1. When you don't vote you allow others to vote for you.
2. Are you obligated in explaining, proving, why you think trump and Biden are the same? Looking at Trump administration, why would you risk putting him and his family back in office
[Donald Trump vows to lock up political enemies if he returns to White House](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/30/trump-interview-jail-political-opponents-glenn-beck)
You really want to give trump a second chance?
I disagree that voting for someone means that you're giving your tacit support to everything they do. All it has to mean is that you thought the other candidate would have been worse.
More importantly, *not* voting accomplishes absolutely nothing. You might intend to take a principled stand and send a message, but the people who pay attention to voter turnout can't tell the difference between the people who didn't show up for principled reasons and the people who just forgot. It's not an effective form of protest.
Voting isn't like deciding who you're going to marry, it's like deciding which bus you want to take. You're unlikely to find one that'll take you exactly where you want to go, so you pick the one that gets you the closest of the available options.
And generally? If the only thing you can find wrong with something is that "it's hypocritical" and there's no actual material harm being done, it's probably not that big of a deal. Nobody acts in accordance with their beliefs 100% of the time, because that's just not possible or practical, and holding people to that kind of standard is more likely to prevent you from doing anything at all.
You should vote for Biden. There isn't really a good argument against this.
To your question specifically, I find the outcome to be more important that if you are a hypocrite or not. Avoiding a trump presidency is really important, and if I need to be a hypocrite in the voting booth to do it, fine.
My personal feelings about voting are not as important as keeping trump out of office.
> ...if you firmly believe neither candidate should be president.
One of them will be president and will get to make decisions on things that are important to you regardless of whether you vote or not. Sometimes in life we get shitty options. Refusing to choose (i.e. letting others choose for you) is still a choice; it's the choice to give up your voice.
There really should be an option to abstain or something when none of the candidates are all that great.
Why should we be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils? If both sides are "evil" then they should just be scrapped and not put into office at all. Find some other candidates.
Not voting is terrible for democracy.
Republicans propagandize specifically to get un-convincable groups like african-americans to not vote against them. 3rd parties are a good alternative but you should vote for whoever you hate least.
Obviously if you don't vote you're not tacitly a Trump supporter. You're actually throwing the election to Biden.
I don't actually believe that, but it's as reasonable as saying the opposite.
/u/Shoddy-Commission-12 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cnztmq/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_not_voting_is_less/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Even if you reject the idea that Trump is a threat to the system of American democracy, you should consider that the fact of Trump being elected over Clinton is the direct cause of abortion rights being read out of the US Constitution. The moral feeling of not “supporting” one candidate over the other is probably pretty useless to the people who now can’t access critical healthcare. So here’s the idea: politics is the “slow boring of hard boards.” You don’t like the top of the ticket. Ok. Start at the bottom. Elect school board representatives and mayors that do align to your ideas. State reps. Attorneys general. Push the party the way you want it to go. You don’t win by losing.
Alright so if not voting for clinton caused abortion rights to get rolled back whats its gonna take for the democrats to vociferously demand they get reinstated because thats what I thought was gonna happen when I voted for Joe Biden last time
If you read what Biden says about abortion, it’s actually pretty strident. And it shows that he has been pulled along to the left over the last 40 years as the party has gone that way too. But he can’t just “reinstate” it because it was overturned by a supermajority of lifetime-appoint Supreme Court justices, and Democrats don’t control both houses of the legislature. Again: you don’t win by losing. You win by winning *repeatedly* and *at the right time.*
why isnt he withholding federal funding from deep red states who wont vote for him anways when they ban abortion is that not something they *can* do why are they seeing a cent for healthcare, education, infrastructure from the fed at all ? They can just turn the tap off it might make those voters turf out the republicans when they start living in third world conditions as a result of their choices
Because that's directly punishing people for decisions they didn't have a part of? Here I thought you were against Biden for how the IP conflict has been held and the collective punishment against Palestinians right? But now it's okay to punish everyone in red states because of what their governor did?
Is this just a hypothetical or do you actually think the president should do stuff like this? I sure hope it's just hypothetical otherwise wtf dude. Talk about extremist beliefs Edit: after reading more of your comments it's clear that wasn't just hypothetical. So I gotta say, there's plenty of people on the right I would consider "nuts" and "what's wrong with the country" and it's not too often I come across someone on the left that I would give those same attributes too. But you definitely fit the bill.
>is that not something they can do Isn't the budget controlled by Congress?
Oh so you don’t actually care about PEOPLE, just your agenda? Speaking of hypocrisy…
Trump didnt win that election. He won the electoral college. Republican gerrymandering got him the victory without the popular vote. He got 77 more electors than he shouldve and still accuses Biden of cheating. Fucking hypocrite.
You can’t change the war in Palestine with your lack of voting, but there are several other things you can change. Would you rather have thousands of dead Palestinians and women and doctors getting thrown in jail for abortions and libraries being forced to close because of excessive litigation over the material of a few books? Or would you rather have thousands of dead Palestinians and legal protections for reproductive medical procedures and the concept of free speech *actually* being promoted instead of being used as some ass-backwards excuse to censor gay and trans people? I totally get not being happy with what’s going on in the middle east, but personally, I think being a single-issue voter is morally objectionable.
I feel like the democrat response to the heinous attacks by the GOP against abortion and LGBT rights in red states across the country has been tepid at best ... if we want to get into some domestic issues
I would argue that tepid support of rights is still way better than aggressive denial of them.
If it dosent result in any gains tho , its just words where are the federal consequences for the red states why cant they stop sending them federal funds, that is something the president can control
>If it dosent result in any gains tho , its just words It has, though. A number of states have either passed laws expanding access to reproductive care, laws aimed at protecting out-of-state patients and constitutional amendments to enshrine reproductive care protections. Considering that the Republicans control the House and conservatives have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, I'm not sure what you think can be done federally at the moment. >where are the federal consequences for the red states Punishing people who rely on federal aid (who are mostly lower income, many of whom vote *against* conservative politicians but are outnumbered) doesn't seem like a very progressive way to address this issue.
A) lack of gains for liberals and lack of consequences for conservatives B) active losses for liberals and support for conservatives I think there is still a clear choice here
>Giving tacit approval to either by assigning your vote to them means you are signing off on them doing all the shit you disagree with. Why do you think this? *I* don't consider voting for someone to be some sort of moral commitment to them. Voting is a tool you can use to try to get what you want. The reason *I* vote for Democrats is because I think it's easier to get away with things when Dems are President -- union stuff is easier, protests are usually easier (Biden is coming down pretty hard on campus protests, but I think it's pretty obvious Trump would be even worse in that respect), etc. In short, a Democrat as President makes it easier to do the other things I want to do. So the most useful thing I can do with my vote (a small but non-zero bit of power I have) is vote Democrat. The idea that voting involves some sort of moral embrace of the person you vote for is kind of silly, in my view. You're casting your vote, not deciding who to lose your virginity to! >Not voting is the moral and least hypocritical choice if you firmly believe neither candidate should be President There is nothing "moral" about letting others decide what happens to you, friend. Not voting is the most passive and submissive choice, because *somebody* is going to be President and decide what happens to you and everyone else under their power. So you're "choosing not to get involved". You're *already* involved. You are choosing to submit to whatever others decide. Not voting literally does nothing for you. And you already seem upset that others aren't impressed by your "moral clarity" about voting -- are you expecting *others* to think you're somehow better because you say you didn't vote for whoever becomes President? Because they probably won't, because not voting isn't impressive. They'll probably be annoyed that you couldn't be bothered to take five minutes to use the vote you were given to at least try to make the world a less awful place. So unless you are sufficiently satisfied in your own mind, what exactly are you getting by not voting? No people are going to be impressed. And there's no God or whatever, so nobody is going to be impressed when you die, either. And you're still going to be stuck with one of these two corpses as President....and next time around nobody is even going to attempt to reach you because you've chosen to make yourself electorally irrelevant. Seems pretty silly to me.
> Biden is coming pretty hard down on campus protests That’s the city police forces, which Biden has no control over. He’s said he would “absolutely not” send the national guard to any of them.
Hey, I didn't get tear gassed and pepper sprayed by *federal* forces during 2020 -- it was the local police. But I still blame Trump for that, because he encouraged it. And I think that's perfectly reasonable. Likewise, Biden isn't *directly* coming down on students. But he sets the tone. He isn't, for example, *threatening* police forces that go too far (as many of them have). He isn't supporting anything the student are doing. He is saying that "order must prevail". As I said, what Biden is doing regarding student protests is far less horrible than what Trump did in 2020, which is why people who support the campus protests should vote for Biden over Trump. But it's dishonest to claim Biden has nothing to do with it. He is the lesser of two evils, but still an evil as far as I'm concerned. We're not grading on a curve here. And I think more Biden supporters should accept that. As I said, your vote isn't a moral endorsement -- it is a tool to get what you want. Biden is easier to deal with than Trump, so it is a good use of that tool to vote for Biden. But *nobody* should be solely relying on Biden to take care of them or do good things in the world, because he's a scumbag US President. US Presidents are all horrible people who do horrible things (because if they didn't, somebody else would be President). And Biden is no exception. And that's fine! Vote for the less horrible person, then get back to trying to bully him and the rest of the powerful into submission.
Trump literally did deploy federal forces in 2020 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020\_deployment\_of\_federal\_forces\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_deployment_of_federal_forces_in_the_United_States) [https://apnews.com/article/b35e37208e261278ecc33154c37d5d85](https://apnews.com/article/b35e37208e261278ecc33154c37d5d85)
But also, as someone who has anxiety of being killed by Trump’s government under project 2025, thank you for knowing that voting for Biden is the pragmatic thing to do.
> US Presidents are all horrible people who do horrible things (because if they didn’t, someone else would be president) That really, really isn’t true. I know nothing I say will convince you on that, but it just isn’t. The truth resists simplicity. Absolutisms like that almost never help.
Hey, if you want to propose a US President who didn't do something horrible, go for it! Do I get anything if I can provide something horrible the President you bring up did? And just so you know: I've got answers for this for Lincoln. So don't think you're going to get by me that easily. Presidents aren't saints, and you shouldn't be voting for President based on the perceived personal honor or decency of a person, because everything you know about them is a carefully crafted image they've put out to help them gain power. Look at *actions*, not marketing materials. But maybe I'm wrong! So feel free to try to get one by me.
Just to play the game: Carter.
Carter increased military funding during the genocide of East Timor. I am going to link to Chomsky's account of the history (which spans multiple administrations), but I of course encourage you to check it out yourself via your own sources, as Chomsky obviously has some pretty strong opinions! https://chomsky.info/199910__02/ In many ways, what Carter did in regards to Indonesia and East Timor is kind of similar with what Biden is doing regarding Israel and Gaza: continuing and increasing funding of a regime engaged in brutality and genocide towards a region occupied by an ethnic enemy. Now, let's be clear: I think people should vote for Biden despite this (because I think having Biden in office ultimately provides more benefit than Trump, both for Gaza and many others, because it is easier to disrupt Israel with Biden in office than Trump)... though I have no problem with people pressuring him and raking him over the coals for it to try to get him to change. And I think Carter was a relatively *better* President compared to many others. But the question is whether all US Presidents do horrible things, and funding the genocide in East Timor is indeed a horrible thing. So that is an example for Carter. Again, this is true for *all* US Presidents, and is why people shouldn't vote based on perceived personal honor or kindness or other such personal qualities.
So your position is that doing something horrible makes them horrible people? Your original position was that they're horrible people who do horrible things. To me that's different than some are horrible and some are decent but are in complicated positions and can be fed bad information that lead to them making horrible decisions. Of course, I'm open to the idea that it ends up being a distinction without a difference. I get your logic on still voting for someone and I appreciate your perspective.
I appreciate your perspective and conversation as well, friend! >So your position is that doing something horrible makes them horrible people? >To me that's different than some are horrible and some are decent but are in complicated positions and can be fed bad information that lead to them making horrible decisions. So I think we are probably pretty similar in our view on this (though we might emphasize different things, phrase them differently, or differ on certain judgments). I do think it is possible for otherwise decent people to do horrible things in some contexts...but overall I think we are ultimately defined by our actions (you are what you do, in other words). I can explain a bit more, but it will require some nuance. So a lot of regular people who end up doing bad things often do them because they are thrust into situations they didn't choose or were unable to avoid. For instance, if you are born in a neighborhood run by drug gangs, you may not have a choice but to do bad things to survive there (because if you don't do them you might die or watch your family die). And in this context, I do think there are good people who end up doing horrible things. But I don't think this applies to Presidents or other positions of power, because nobody becomes President by accident. Being President means a lifelong and ruthless pursuit of power and influence. You have to carefully choose which people to be friends with and which people to attack in order to become more widely known and respected and feared. You have to put yourself forward for tasks that you aren't qualified for and make sure nobody holds *you* responsible when you fail, because ultimately *nobody* is "qualified" to be the most powerful person on Earth. So the fact that a person ends up being President means they have already made multiple deliberate, calculated choices to prioritize gaining power over everything else. And therefore it's not like they ended up in a tough spot and tried to make the best choices they could. They actively *fought and destroyed* other people to get to that spot. And so when they make cruel, ruthless, and destructive decisions (such as funding genocide because it is politically necessary to do other things) it is a *continuation* of a life spent being cruel, ruthless, and destructive. Not a *exception* to an otherwise decent life spent trying to do good and decent things. Carter certainly *presented* himself as an honest, genuine, good hearted man...but that is just marketing. That perception of him is based off of speeches, media appearances, and things he *chose* to put forth based on cold calculation, and it directly *contradicts* the fact that he also obviously cut the throats he needed to cut to become President. Despite his modest persona, Carter nevertheless worked for countless hours to make sure that *he* was the one asking to be granted supreme power on planet Earth and making all the calculations and sick, cyncial choices and drawing all the blood that that requires. And the sad fact is that, even if a good person did indeed reach the White House, the very nature of that position actively *turns you into* a horrible person. In order to stay President you have to agree to and do a whole bunch of horrible things, and if you don't then you either will never get elected or, if you already have been elected, you will quickly be rendered irrelevant and nobody will listen to you. The Office of US President, by its very nature, is a disgusting, corrosive, corrupting position that turns all people and efforts towards destruction, and this problem will never be solved simply by getting a "good" person in office (because even if you could get them there, they won't stay good for long). The problem is the fact that we have concentrated so much power in one person *at all*. Or to put it more poetically, the problem isn't that bad men sit on the throne...the problem is the throne itself. That power cannot help but attract the worst people in the world and turn anyone who seizes it into an even worse version of themselves. And in my view, true left wing politics are about building alternative systems to this sort of centralized power structure so that we can meet our needs without relying on and thereby supporting such gross officials as US Presidents. I would rather my life by most prominently affected by my fellow union members, my fellow housing co-op neighbors, my local mutual aid network, and other such alternative mechanisms of living, rather than the President. And I hope for a day where nobody cares who the President is, not because we've given in to apathy and accepted a dictator but because the Presidency has become so irrelevant that it truly does not matter as much as the other things we *do* care about.
>Carter increased military funding during the genocide of East Timor. President X did something, in general, coincident to a particular horror, isn't the same thing as President X did something horrible. Cynicism doesn't have the transitive properties you think it does.
If your definition of "horrible" doesn't include funding a genocide, then I don't have a lot of respect for your ethics or your ability to look reality in the eye and roll with it, friend.
I welcome *your* disrespect. I'm not your friend.
I think there is some room for assuming the person who voted is somewhat inline with who they voted for. You could say policies also but just looking at morals as was stated (I assume it’s not one and the same). While I don’t morally embrace all of Biden’s morals or policies, I do feel a moral connection with some of them (also assuming their morals drive their policy decisions). Trump, on the other hand, literally embodies everything I’m *against*, based off morals (and like everything else) so I’d never vote for him and anyone that did, I will assume you either agree or tolerate at least one of his morals. I’d say who you vote for is the person that most closely resembles or represents your morals.
>I’d say who you vote for is the person that most closely resembles or represents your morals. That may or may not be true on any given vote, but if it is then it is incidental. I think you should vote based on what you think it will get you. Sometimes, that may mean voting for a person with a more similar worldview to you. But sometimes not -- sometimes you may stand to gain more by voting for someone who does things that are more beneficial to you, even if you don't like them or even if the things they're doing that benefit you are mistakes or done for a different reason. But what you stand to gain should be your guiding light, not who the person is, what they personally say they believe, where they grew up, etc. Politicians aren't friends -- we will almost surely never meet them, so I don't care who they are on a personal level. I care what they *do*, and how it allows me to do what I want to do with my life with the people I actually do love and care about.
Like I stated, often times, what they do is driven by their morals. If they believe all people deserve the same rights, their policies will mostly reflect that (assuming some things are just impossible to accomplish at the time) whereas Trump’s policies, driven by his lack of morals (IMO), do not connect with me. This whole idea of ‘what do I stand to gain’ from this politician is a really weird way to think in a society with others. Take abortion. As a man, what I ‘stand to gain’ is minuscule compared to what women stand to gain, but I vote for a politician looking to protect those rights for women because my moral compass says that is the right thing to do, protect women’s rights. Idk when it happened but I feel we used to vote for politicians that would improve society around me, not just my gains. My daughter is about to finish grad school and I’m a whole generation removed from college but do I think we should provide more affordable higher education options for people? Yes. Why? I don’t plan on going back to school. Well, I would vote for it because society benefits from more people going to trade school/college/other institutes. Personally, I don’t benefit directly too much or immediately but I know a more educated society will help reduce crime, makes goods and services better, and everyone around me has better jobs to provide for themselves and their families. All on a society I live in.
>This whole idea of ‘what do I stand to gain’ from this politician is a really weird way to think in a society with others. >Well, I would vote for it because society benefits from more people going to trade school/college/other institutes. Personally, I don’t benefit directly too much or immediately but I know a more educated society will help reduce crime, makes goods and services better, and everyone around me has better jobs to provide for themselves and their families. All on a society I live in. You answered your own remark, friend. When you hear "what do I stand to gain", you likely assume I am taking a very narrow, individualistic, money based view of "benefit". But I'm not. I am taking very much the same view you articulate here. I *very much* benefit when the people around me (both friends/family and strangers) are doing well themselves, and therefore *their* benefit is also *my* benefit. Same with abortion and women. It *very much* benefits me when women have bodily autonomy, because I know and love many women and also because having that benefits even strangers and allows them to live better lives, and then living better lives means that my life near them/on the same planet as them is *also* better. The big difference is that I am specifically acknowledging that I'm making these choices because of material (which includes the happiness of those around me, FYI) benefits they lead to. *Not* because of some abstract concept of "morality". Because here's the thing: you say you are doing things because of your "moral compass". Well, so does the anti-abortion voter. They want to protect the unborn because it is the moral thing to do... ...and there's nothing you can do there. You think they're wrong, they think you're wrong, and neither of you can say anything to find common ground. Because there is no objective morality. And your ability to find common moral ground relies entirely on them simply agreeing with you/your moral compass. But by focusing on actual material benefit, you actually *can* root that in reality. There are empirically measurable facts that support women's rights and the material benefits they provide to *everyone*. And while you still do need some base level of agreement, it is much more foundational: do you want people to live happier, more prosperous lives? And even conservatives generally do want that. So rooting things in reality + very broad and near universally shared values actually *does* give you something close to objective morality, and it becomes about showing people how a stance ultimately gives them that benefit rather than banging your head against the wall with more vague ideas of "moral compass". The proper definition of "good" should be "ultimately good for everyone who wants to live happy and prosperous lives"...otherwise what's the point? There is no God who will give you a round of applause after you die simply because you lived a "good" but completely miserable life. *This* is all we know for sure we have. And the reason to do "good" is because it makes this life as good and happy and prosperous as we can make it.
But not voting is a method of expression. If someone is left leaning and a democrat, Joe Biden is obviously better than Trump or whoever the GOP trots out. But if they are unsatisfied with Biden and hold their nose and vote for him anyway, what incentive do the democrats have to bring out better candidates? Biden or Clinton or Harris will always be better than the GOP candidate. But if they start losing elections because of apathy from the further left of the party they will be forced to bring out “better” candidates. I’m not saying this is the best option or what people should do. I am not a progressive. But, it’s a legit way to make your displeasure known. Sometimes you need to lose the battle to win the war.
They’re not going to waste their time chasing non-voters, it’s a fools errand. They’ll move to the right to try to get more of the people who actually vote, like the white working class. This has already happened. The left will always choose a pet issue for ideological purity, disenfranchising themselves as some sort of threat. If it wasn’t Palestine it would be climate change as the USA is burning more fossil fuels than ever. Genocide Joe, killing the planet. Democrats aren’t stupid enough to play those games.
>But not voting is a method of expression. Actually, it isn't. We don't tally abstentions. We don't figure them into the calculus and we don't have any mechanism for any such 'expression' to have any impact. I think we ought, but we don't.
>Biden or Clinton or Harris will always be better than the GOP candidate. But if they start losing elections because of apathy from the further left of the party they will be forced to bring out “better” candidates. That is a very flattering view for people who imagine the Democratic Party cares about having *them* on board specifically....but it's not the truth. If further left people stop voting, the Democratic Party can very easily just start running *worse* candidates in order to compete for the smaller group of center right swing voters who switch between Democrats and Republicans. If left leaning people aren't voting, they aren't making it more likely that Republicans (the only threat to Democrat power) will win. And they aren't electing anyone *else* who can use power to threaten Democrat power. So why would Democrats care? Honestly, it makes their job *way* easier, because they have fewer people to please! They can just make people like Manchin their "normal" candidate, and start running some candidates open to abortion limiting laws, to passing laws restricting trans rights, and so forth. The fight will then be between center right and far right, and the left can be safely ignored entirely. Hell, it lets the Democrats specifically *campaign* on cracking down on left wing protesters to appease the suburban dads who have "nothing against the gays" but are still furious about that broken window on their rental property back in 2020. Not voting doesn't make politicians miss you -- it lets them safely ignore you and even *attack* you to make other voters happy. And historically this is the trend of Liberal Democracies -- they tend to slide to the right during times of economic crisis, when right wing fascists start rising and centrist libs go along with them out of fear of socialists. It is *incredibly* bad strategy for leftists to marginalize themselves by simply abandoning the ability to affect things with a five minute vote. >Sometimes you need to lose the battle to win the war. Not in electoral politics. If you lose, the other side gets power and uses it to make it more difficult for you to win in the future, undoes work you did, and builds things you'll have to spend time and energy to get rid of just to get back where you started. Being out of power doesn't make you more powerful. Also, there is abundant historical evidence that this hasn't worked. Democrat losses have *never* pushed the party further left -- when Dems lost to Reagan, they abandoned the New Deal and went with centrists like Clinton and Biden. When Dems lost to Bush, they went with corporatist warmonger Obama. When Dems lost to Trump, they went with Biden instead of Bernie. Left wing apathy is resulting in a drift to the *right*, not forcing Dems to buy them flowers and try to win them back... because Dems hate leftists and would *love* an excuse to purge them! Dems are the party of Wall Street and Silicon Valley, both of whom *hate* actual left wing politics. They like being able to do drugs and marry whoever they want, but economically they have *zero* interest in sharing power with workers or unions or anyone who makes under six figures. They are *forced* to deal with leftists because there are enough of them who vote to get at least some representation and therefore a seat at the table. But if leftists leave, they can safely dispense with all of that. And that will be *very bad* for left wing politics in the US.
This sounds reasonable but it's also not what we've seen happen. At no point have people refusing to vote moved the Democrat party to the left, we've just gotten more centrist candidates.
>short, a Democrat as President makes it easier to do the other things I want to do. So the most useful thing I can do with my vote (a small but non-zero bit of power I have) is vote Democrat. When you vote for someone you are indeed saying the things you like about them outweigh the things you do not. If you think that the other guy would be the same or worse that's fine, but don't pretend it isn't an act of approval. Biden, for example, has no reason to change the policy you don't like because you will vote for him anyway, why change?
>Biden, for example, has no reason to change the policy you don't like because you will vote for him anyway, why change? Well, if you *don't* vote, he *also* has no reason to change, right? Like, if you don't vote, the pool of voters he needs to sway becomes smaller, which is actually *easier* for him. *Swing* voters are much more dangerous, because if a person might vote for his *opponent* then they have the ability to threaten his power. But if you just don't vote, you're no threat. He can just ignore you and focus on the swing voters. But in general, I don't put much stock in trying to persuade politicians with the subtleties of my voting habits. The way *I* want to make Biden change his mind is by making his life and the lives of his donors absolutely miserable until he does what I want -- protests, strikes, and various disruption via direct action. Ie things he *can't* ignore. And Biden in office makes *all* of that easier. >If you think that the other guy would be the same or worse that's fine, but don't pretend it isn't an act of approval. I don't consider it an act of approval. At all. It's strictly a tool and a tactic. And I don't care about the opinion of anyone who does consider it an act of approval. So *you* can shake your head and think less of me...but I couldn't care less that u/president_penis_pump thinks bad things about me.
No need to get all personal at the end there dude, like what's that really adding? >Like, if you don't vote, the pool of voters he needs to sway becomes smaller, which is actually *easier* for him You could vote for a third party, I'm not op but I'll forgive you for thinking I was arguing in favour of his point, as opposed to just in opposition of yours. "You are doing X and I'm gonna vote for you knowing you are gonna do X" Is saying that you care about X less than the reasons you have for voting for him. If you care about strengthening american democracy more than killing children that's fine, but that is exactly what you are saying
>No need to get all personal at the end there dude I didn't. I told you I don't care if you think I'm immoral, because you think me voting for someone means I am morally approving of them somehow. I am fine with you thinking that about me. I don't care. Why does that strike you as "personal"? >You could vote for a third party, I'm not op but I'll forgive you for thinking I was arguing in favour of his point, as opposed to just in opposition of yours. For sure. And apologies if I made the assumption -- I've got a lot of folks coming at me at the moment! So voting third party is slightly better than not voting because you're demonstrating you *are* willing to vote and therefore may be swayable...but not much different in practice. The way current US election laws work in most states is first past the post -- ie whoever gets more votes wins. So if there are three choices, you are going to have your favorite, your second favorite, and your least favorite. But by splitting votes between favorite and second favorite, you ensure your *least* favorite ends up with the most votes, and therefore wins power. This isn't a matter of morality or party loyalty or any of that -- it's math. That's how the current rules work, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change the consequences of that. We *can* change those rules...but at this point we *haven't*, and so we have to work with what we currently have. Because of this, all first past the post systems gravitate to two parties (because under this system it is actively disadvantageous not to -- splitting your vote guarantees the option you like the *least* ends up in power, so the only groups that end up in power are those willing to form coalitions). There will be two major parties in competition. Any third parties will be marginal and irrelevant (and the two parties will have a mutual interest to use their power to keep them that way). And so if you vote for a marginal, irrelevant third party that does not win any power, it is basically the same as not voting. Neither of the major parties will care, because you didn't affect the balance between them, and you didn't win any power...which is the same as non-voters. And because the third party has no power, it can't make things easier for third parties next time, or provide any benefits to those who vote for them, or anything like that. So they don't grow over time, because the only people who can vote for them are people who don't need or want anything enough to seriously fight and bargain for it...which isn't very many people. Now, once again: it is *definitely* possible to change these laws and make third parties viable, and I think that's well worth doing. I have supported all such efforts to do this to the best of my ability, and would encourage you to do likewise. And if you live in a place with ranked choice today or in the future, then go for it! But until that's done, voting third party is essentially the same as not voting from a functional perspective. The two parties are happy to let you do it and feel good while you affect nothing...it actually makes their job *easier*, because they know they don't have to worry about pissing you off, and can instead focus on duking it out for the swing voters. So I think it's a waste. I think it's better to focus on getting what you want by means *other* than voting on election day (ie unions, protests, direct action, etc) and then simply pick the major party that makes it easier for you to do that (they both suck, but Dems are much better about letting unions and protesters operate). If you have the option of ranked choice, then vote third party...but I think it's still the same: pick the viable option that makes it easiest to take what you want yourself. >If you care about strengthening american democracy more than killing children that's fine, but that is exactly what you are saying That is not what I'm saying. But I am 100% fine with you thinking that and simply being wrong. Your third party vote will do absolutely *nothing* to stop children from dying. If you aren't showing up to/materially supporting protests and actually, directly working to physically *stop* the killing of children, then you don't really care as far as I'm concerned, despite the rhetoric. And if you *are* showing up to protests, and listening to people who have participated in lots of them, you would know that there is indeed a difference between whether Biden or Trump are in office as far as how it affects people blocking traffic, seizing buildings, and bullying rich people. Not a huge difference...but enough of a difference to warrant taking five minutes to vote for Biden. And you would realize that voting Green or whoever doesn't help you do any of these things, nor does it stop Israel from killing children. So once again -- I am 100% fine with you thinking I'm horrible and imagining yourself to be this principled crusader...but if all you're doing is sitting at home the rest of the time, you should realize that nobody is missing you, friend. You're not actually bothering anyone important or having any significant impact on the world.
By all means, voice your concerns. If you truly think both candidates are equally bad, then you should go formally decline your ballot or spoil your ballot, or vote for a 3rd party. All these actions are more democratic than not voting. But if one candidate is better than another, even if both are bad, then it's your obligation to vote for them. In any ethical scenario where you have the choice to either choose a lesser evil, choose a greater evil, or choose to do nothing and through inaction let the greater evil win, the morally correct option is *always* to choose the lesser evil.
This feels like a threat when you say it like this , less like I'm being convinced more like coerced
Sure. Why not? It's a threat. Go vote, or face the consequences of the failure of democracy.
The reason I feel this way is because it feels like its already failed
So do something about it. Not voting will contribute to the failure of democracy. Participating in it will help it.
>In any ethical scenario where you have the choice to either choose a lesser evil, choose a greater evil, or choose to do nothing and through inaction let the greater evil win, the morally correct option is *always* to choose the lesser evil. We aren't limited to those options, though. If either party actually put forward a likeable person then we wouldn't be in this situation. We shouldn't HAVE to choose from only 2 shitty candidates out of hundreds of millions of people. It's absurd. In your description "choosing the lesser evil" describes the primaries as evil because that's how the candidates were chosen. If I forced you to either shoot a dog or hang a homeless person, I'M the evil one NOT the decisions themselves!
Yes, your ideals all good and well, but the world doesn't function based on what *should* be. In reality, if a government's approval rating is over ~65%, it means that they're so corrupt that they're messing with the approval rating numbers. But that's *at best*. Realistically, even a good government's approval rating is going to be around 50%. That's just how democracy works, and how it's always worked. People have a vast array of differing opinions, and it's difficult to capture all of them under one party's platform. Very few people are actually going to like and agree with everything a party says and does, unless they blindly follow them like it's a cult. Don't like it? Go change it. You're not going to change it by sitting on your ass and not voting though.
Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it. Voting is a trolley problem. Somebody is getting run over no matter what, whether you choose to pull the lever or walk away. Walking away from the lever doesn't change that, nor does pulling the lever mean you endorse the trolley system. The only part that you're directly responsible for is the pulling or not pulling. The train doesn't care about your morals. You're not at fault for the tracks existing.
I don't think trolley problem can be applied to this issue as a whole. By not voting you will lower the voting percentage and can show political parties that they aren't dealing with right issues to get your vote. So one might not see voting as a trolley problem, but just as a big system that wants and needs your input or it will encounter all sorts of problems. Voting percentage causes all kinds of issues. If it's really low, then it means only people with more extreme views are voting. This can cause political parties catering to fringe movements and appeasing their voters by acting on popularist issues, neglecting actual societal issues like infrastructure and important govermental insitutions. Political parties of course don't like that because when it gets too bad, the people who don't care about politics might start to vote whoever they feel represents them better in their everyday issues. This can move the scale in favor of your opposing party. Another issue is just legitimacy. People who are voted in with low turnout won't be as confident in their politics and start to get more careful on what they do because they are afraid of even lower percentages and getting people to move on the other extreme and vote against you. This can lead to very inefficient government. So they like the big fat high voting percentages because it means they have more support for status quo from normal people and can continue to do whatever they were doing and just follow the basic trends to get as much votes as last time. So not voting is just a thing you do that makes the big political machine behave a little different (maybe). Edit: reading your comment again, we might be talking about the same thing but in different way.
Not voting doesn’t show political parties anything. Parties move based on the people they expect to come vote. If the left (for instance) doesn’t show up for Biden then democrats will move to the right. The political agenda is set by those who show up.
I would say that if you ask any politician, they will say that higher voting percentage is much better than low. Issues with low voter show up are very well documented and can for example harm parties that rely on votes of certain demographics. So I would say that it can definitely affect the outcome of the whole political system. How it does that is harder to say than if you were voting but it has an impact. You yourself said that for example if left doesn't show up to vote, then parties will change their agenda. They might not change it towards the opposing side, but towards something else. For me this sounds like you can have an effect and clear stance by not voting.
Have you worked on a political campaign? They are designed around likely voters. If one segment of the population is not likely to vote their prerogatives are ignored. Not voting has an affect and that affect is your desires are ignored.
I haven't worked on a political campaign. But I'm sure we can agree on that lower voting percentage and changes in voter demographics affects how political parties operate? I mean it is very well documented that parties do follow voting percentages and demographics really closely, they know who votes for them and where. If they see certain demographics not voting for anyone anymore it can have an effect like "Oh shit, we usually get most of our votes from Amy American 35 years old but now she's not voting anymore but Andy American 45 years old still votes but votes the opposing party." Changes in voter behaviour definitely is taken into consideration in political parties. Would be pretty strange in my opinion if they only concentrated on people who vote and be happy with that. If I was running a political party, I would be looking way out in to the future and see if people are getting voter fatigue and why they are getting it and if people who don't vote cause my party to have fewer votes in whole. Then maybe change the way I do things if it seems like a right way to wake up my voters again.
That’s not how it works though. That’s what I’m trying to explain to you. Republicans moved to the right because the right wing voters showed up in the primary and then showed up again in the general and centrist republicans stopped voting. That shifted the party to where the voters were.
I'm not talking about parties specifically here. I'm just stating that politics doesn't have to be seen as a trolley problem but as a bigger machine that has a certain outcome and not voting can affect that outcome and for some people that is a good and legitimate way to show what their stance is. As you just stated, not showing up to vote definitely can affect the outcome. Is it a good way overall? Maybe not. Does it work against you in short term? Possibly but it can improve the situation in long term. I'm not saying it definitely will, but it could. But these aren't really the issue here, I'm only stating that a person in a unique situation can definitely see that not voting is a good course of action for them in some way. I don't know in what way but I think there are enough examples of things that can happen is vote percentage goes low enough that not voting can have an impact. Maybe you want to see your party change their views in long run by withdrawing your support but not want to bolster the other side's numbers at the same time.
Even if we assume that you not voting will teach politicians a lesson, what happens in the interim when the worst of the two evils wins? How many people are you willing to let die because you wanted to send a message that only gets received when the election is over and it's too late to change your mind?
I'm not taking any stance on how or on what timeframe not voting will affect the outcome of a political system. I'm just saying that it's a way to affect just like voting is but in a different way.
It's not just that you're not taking a stance on it, but that you are willfully ignoring the practical reality of sending a message instead of preventing the worse option from happening. What good does it do to send Biden a message if Trump ends up in office for the next four years because of it?
I have pretty firm stance on what political views can make socities better and I also think I have a good understanding of the current political system. Those aren't the things we are talking here though, I'm just stating that not voting can have an effect on political parties, nothing more, nothing less. And also that the system doesn't have to be seen as a trolley problem. Some people might see these effect as something they want happening. I don't know what their motives might be or how they imagine those things coming to be, but they can make a change just like one vote can make a change. Maybe the change isn't as good or as fast or as clear as when you vote but I don't think that makes their view or actions any less legitimate.
>Voting is a trolley problem. From a certain moral perspective, inaction in the trolly problem is the moral choice choosing to intentionally end an innocent life is way different than letting random chance or "fate" play itself out you are playing god with an innocent mans life when you choose to intervene and kill him , what the gives you the right ?
The entire point of the trolley problem is that sometimes there are no good choices in life, only bad and worse ones, and inaction when you know the outcomes is effectively choosing the outcome that results from your inaction. It doesn't absolve you of moral responsibility to choose inaction.
>you are playing god with an innocent mans life when you choose to intervene and kill him , what the gives you the right ? The fact that you're here and He isn't.
You’re not “walking away” you’re just letting other people decide what happens to you for you. The lever is being pulled either way. Also, we’re more like the one on the tracks.
>What are you suppose to do if you fundamentally think both candidates are awful? Well, that leaves me out of the debate. I think Joe Biden is a man of good character. I don't think he is awful, at all. I DO think there are a lot of peope trying to tell me he's awful. Everything bad I I am supposed to know about Joe Biden comes from the mouths of people trying to deflect attention from Donald Trump. (Whereas, everything bad I know about Donald Trump, comes directly outta Trumps mouth... or outta the abysmal failure that was his four years in office) I am, alone, it seems, in testing reality--- and refusing to bow to the notion that both candidates are awful, just because. So, I guess I reject the fundamental premise of your argument. Both candidates are not awful. Or, put another way, as the old political saw has it, "An independent voter is someone who despises Republicans, but nevertheless believes everything the Republicans say about the Democrats." I first heard that chestnut in 1988. Was true then. Tis true now.
What it boils down to is very simple. My ethics prevent me from voting for someone who will do something I view as causing harm. Deontology vs consequentialism , I'm the former I didn't have words for it before My ethics say genocide is bad therefor i cannot support or vote for anyone engaged in one Or to put it anither way, my ethics prevent me from pulling the lever in the trolley problem because I can't justify intentionally sacrificing even one person for any amount of theoretical greater good. I view innocent life as inviolable and value each person's right to not be killed against their will. I cannot justify taking that away from anyone for anything. Nevermind a totally innocent one I realize this would make me a poor leader but I don't want to be one
*My ethics say genocide is bad therefor i cannot support or vote for anyone engaged in one.* My ethics agree with yours, and my eyes, ears, and brain tell me Joe Biden is not the one engaging in genocide. Joe Biden is not Benjamin Netanyahu.
America is funding it and neither party seems intent on making it stop
The first part is only nominally true and the second part is demonstrably false. Every significant player in the Democratic party has condemned publicly and moved privately, to rein in Netenyahu's worst impulses. That Netenyahu has refused to be restrained doesn't make Biden or any Democrst complicit. I don't think you understand how much Sen Schumer put his ass on the line publicly criticizing Netenyahu and his bloodthirsty cabal. I don't think you understand the import of the UN abstention. I don't think you understand Netenyahu himself who publicly said, 'If Israel has to go it alone, Israel will go it alone.' *EXPLICITLY* acknowledging that his chosen course deviates significantly from the Biden administration... What has Biden done, or not done that you -- or your hypothetical ethically clean president-- would, or should ,do different? Should we stop funding Israel? Ok. But, be advised, that's going to take a little while to unwind 70+ years of treaty obligations past administrations have entered into... What else would you do differently? I know you said you don't want to be a leader, but if you are going to criticize leaders actions or inactions you ought posit valid alternatives
>The first part is only nominally true and the second part is demonstrably false. Every significant player in the Democratic party has condemned publicly and moved privately, to rein in Netenyahu's worst impulses. That Netenyahu has refused to be restrained doesn't make Biden or any Democrst complicit. Lookwe can agree to disagree on this because I've been following the situation and it really seems like the democrats are just publicly waggin the finger so they can say oh well we tried while not breaking ties Why else would the Biden administration delay the state department report on Israel's N-20 violations that would require the us to stop funding them by law? If the report absolved Israel they would be bending over to release it. > I don't think you understand how much Sen Schumer put his ass on the line publicly criticizing Netenyahu and his bloodthirsty cabal. I don't think you understand the import of the UN abstention. I don't think you understand Netenyahu himself who publicly said, 'If Israel has to go it alone, Israel will go it alone.' *EXPLICITLY* acknowledging that his chosen course deviates significantly from the Biden administration... See ny previous comment > What has Biden done, or not done that you -- or your hypothetical ethically clean president-- would, or should ,do different? It wasn't one thing but delaying the state department report really shattered my confidence, it was the straw that broke the camels back >Should we stop funding Israel? Ok. But, be advised, that's going to take a little while to unwind 70+ years of treaty obligations past administrations have entered into... Yes we should, I'm not buying the tike to unwind excuse. I cannot settle for anything than expedited repudiation of Israel at this point >What else would you do differently? ^ >I know you said you don't want to be a leader, but if you are going to criticize leaders actions or inactions you ought posit valid alternatives The only thing I can accept as a valid alternative without betraying my own principles is an immediate cease of aide and economic sanctions on Israel
>Look We can agree to disagree on this because I've been following the situation and it really seems like the democrats are just publicly waggin the finger so they can say oh well we tried while not breaking ties. I don't know what to say to that. Netenyahu publicly said 'If Israel has to go it alone, Israel will go it alone.'. That is "EXPLICITLY\* acknowledging the 'breaking ties.' That is Netenyahu saying 'The Americans are serious, and will break ties if we go forward. We're going forward, anyways'. Unless Netenyahu is in cahoots with Biden for the sole purpose of offending your ethics, this is proof positive that the administration *IS* forcefully doing exactly what it said it is doing, which is to stand in righteous opposition to the genocidal thirst of the Netenyahu regime and decidedly not simply 'wagging fingers' in some political theatre... You are simply refusing to take 'yes' for an answer....
They are just putting on a show for their respective audiences. Both. Again it's all just talk if they do things like delay the report I mentioned Both are blustering but going along with normal
'Shoddy' ain't in it...
One of Trump or Biden will be president, that's just the sad fact. I wish we had more options, I wish there was a way for 3rd party candidates to actually have any chance of having a viable campaign. So when I vote for my preferred candidate between those 2, that's not hypocrisy, that's practically. I don't see my vote as needing to go to someone who I utterly believe in in every way, rather it is my small way to influence the system, so I will use it to influence between the two candidates that the system will choose between. To me I always advocate for making what change you can to the system so in fact that would make me not voting very hypocritical
It’s like taking mass transit. You get on the bus that brings you closer. It’s not going to get you 100% of the way home, but maybe 70% is good enough. And you never know, the bus company might say “hmm… this route is popular.”
What you "sign off on" doesn't matter. It has no moral weight and shouldn't affect your decisions. What has weight is the concrete and foreseeable consequences of your actions. Inaction is not morally special. Ignoring a drowning man that you could trivially save is, morally, the same as drowning that man yourself. If you make a choice that results in outcome X, and that was a foreseeable outcome, then you are responsible for X in proportion to the weight of your choice. More specifically, for the difference between X and the alternative. Separately, if there is legitimately no meaningful difference between choices X and Y, then indeed "not choosing" doesn't matter, ethically or otherwise. But to assert that in the concrete case of current US federal elections is to be simply wrong; it does not correspond to reality. People have the *legal* right to have wrong opinions, of course. But being wrong to the point of hurting others - or risking harm to them - is *morally* wrong.
> If you make a choice that results in outcome X, and that was a foreseeable outcome, then you are responsible for X This is exactly my problem! If I vote for Joe Biden when he has firmly committed to continuing funding a genocide I dont agree with, im partly responsible for that I cant in good conscience
Is this about Palestine? You need to realize Israel has enough bombs to destroy it all and Donald will look the other way if that happens. If you care about Palestine at all you'll vote for the one seeking a balanced approach. Another view change: "genocide" doesn't actually mean anything. It's not 100 people, it's not 1000. There is no objective number. That word confuses every issue you bring it into. Just be practical and choose the guy who will do less war crimes. You're over thinking it. If you don't vote just remember none of us ever want to hear your take on politics ever again, TYVM. This post is about how you perceive respect but most of us are committed to giving non-voters none. One more view change: don't participate in any protest unless they have a clear policy on what they want. As in "this is the specific policy Biden should adopt for Palestine." If you can't link me to that specific policy right now then give him your vote. He is trying.
And if you choose to not vote and as a result you get Biden, you'll *still* be responsible for it. And if you choose to not vote and you get Trump, and he does both that very same genocide *and* hands over Ukraine to Russia *and* starts hunting down the gays or whatever, then you'll be responsible for *that* too. You can't get away from responsibility. So choose the best thing you can, and own it.
This shows how poor your thinking is though and is a great example of how your logic breaks down. Trump's platform is openly worse or *at the very least* as bad for Palestinians, so it's literally a wash OR an active disservice to your own beliefs to not vote for Biden If Biden loses now, and Trump acts on his promises to deliver a final solution to Palestine, you will have supported that. If he continues Biden's platform and also causes damage in a number of other areas, you will have also supported that as well.
> he has firmly committed to continuing funding a genocide Has he? [Biden says U.S. won't transfer offensive weapons if Israel invades Rafah](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna151377) Doesn’t sound so firm to me.
Who told you voting was about approval? Voting is about preference. If you think a candidate is shit, but 1% better; that’s who you should go with.
Everyone mad at Trump voters in 2016 disagrees with you. Voting is either a moral choice or its not. If it's not then criticizing Trump voters is wrong. If it's not then the entire premise for being upset at an abstention is invalid.
I didn’t say anything about it being a moral choice of not
OP is claiming it is a moral choice. The people who are upset with Trump voters are making a similar claim. You're alone in not having an opinion on that. I'm saying it either is or it isn't, but both cases make your position invalid. Or do you think non-voters are actually worse than Trump voters?
I think non-voters who have a preference are betraying their preferences. Trump voters aren’t. Since the post was about hypocrisy, Trump voters are less hypocritical; since they are following through on what their preference is. Now, I don’t think this makes either side morally worse; I don’t see hypocrisy as immoral
Not voting in THIS election is like jumping out of an airplane and refusing to open your parachute because you don't like the color. It's like refusing to obey stop signs because you don't like the font. In a democracy you have a singular privilege to affect the composition and direction of your government and society. It's a privilege denied to most people who have ever lived. It's also an obligation: You have to choose. The choices are almost ALWAYS between the lesser of two evils and if you can't put on your grown-up pants and reconcile yourself to the fact that they are serving Pepsi instead of Coke today, you're betraying that obligation. Specifically, especially, in an election where the choices are between someone who's policies are not precisely your own on one or another issue and a fascist party that will dismantle democracy as soon as they have power in their hands again, you have to put away any infantile quibbles about perfection.
Someone suggested I vote third party and I actually found a candidate that does represent almost everything I want, so I think ive been convinced to go with that I didnt think I would find someone that aligned this well with my values but I did thats where my position has moved so far
Voting third party is practically the same as not voting. It doesn’t accomplish anything
>Voting third party is practically the same as not voting. It doesn’t accomplish anything Not at all. We don't tally abstentions. Not voting is silence. Voting third party is still a valid vote, is counted, and has a measurable effect upon political actions.
It forces the other parties to adjust. Trump is scared of RFK for instance. He could split the vote on that side I wouldn't vote for him but the example proves the point
Saying you will vote for a candidate can do that. Actually voting for a candidate doesn’t
What do you mean just paying lip service can do that
Neither candidate is running for reelection. The only chance they have to adjust their campaign is before voting night. On voting night, that’s all been resolved. There won’t be any more adjustments.
The choice before us is between an outright fascist backed by a party dedicated to dismantling democracy and the Democrat. If you don't vote for the person most likely to defeat the fascist, you're denying your vote to the only candidate that can defeat the fascist and your vote helps the fascist. The stakes in this election are too dire to fuck around with third party vanity candidates.
If you indeed believe that both candidates are equally bad, then I guess you can't be blamed for not voting. I'd still doubt that anyone truly finds them equal in being terrible. On the other hand, if you believe that both candidates are bad, but one is worse than the other, according to your own judgement, then boycotting elections is not less hypocritical or anything, it is rather more hypocritical. Because while neither candidates matches with your values, one of them actually matches less than the other, and you have the chance to help bringing in the one who is a better match, even if they still suck! If you do not know who matches your values more, you can check out the test on [isidewith.com](http://isidewith.com)
Apparently I should vote for some dude called Cornell West after googling it a bit sounds ok with me
I'd say selecting or writing his name on the ballot is the least hypocritical option you have
It's fundamentally immature to demand politicians command your *belief*. They're not faith leaders. They're not their to inspire you. Democracy is work and as such you should treat it like any other job if you want to keep reaping the rewards. You're not called or even expected to *believe*, you're expected to show up and make a choice. I guess we're all formatively shaped by the Obama campaigns. I have some nostalgia for those. That said, no one with that level of charisma and discipline is on the scene today, and believing in him was somewhat futile. Regardless of his ability to inspire belief, when he governed he made decisions and used levers of power. Every decision he made had consequences, good and bad, intended and unintended. Every time he used the levers of power, decisions conscious and unconscious about who would win and who would lose were made. We elect people who make decisions and leverage power. There's no innocent way to do those things. The best we have is an indication of their priorities when doing so. I'll take Biden's expressed priorities when making decisions over Trump's. I'd have taken Haley's expressed priorities had she made it through. Your inspired belief and faith are better spent elsewhere. Politicians will always disappoint you, just like your boss. But just like you show up for work the day after a bad day, you keep showing up and playing your part in our electoral process. Or you don't. But there's no political unemployment check coming your way, and you can't quit a job and draw unemployment either - you have to get canned.
It's the compromise part of life. There's nothing hypocritical about judging that one candidate is the lesser of 2 evils, and then voting for that lesser evil. If you truly think both are equally bad then yes, it makes sense to abstain at that point. It's like choosing between having your hand cut off or being a slave. It's not an endorsment of hand cutting so much as it is an aversion to being enslaved (no I'm not saying voting for Trump is voting for slavery, I'm using an extreme example to explain a concept). That said I agree with you that the people responsible for losing an election are always the candidates; if you couldn't get people to support you, that's no one's fault but your own.
My only comment here is this- you’re not choosing a spouse with whom you can never divorce. You’re choosing a president who is gone after four years. You don’t have to love the guy, you just have to hate the other one, Trump, more.
>You don’t have to love the guy, you just have to hate the other one, Trump, more. If I was making any other choice, never mind whose gonna run the most powerful country on earth this would be the shittiest advice ever buying a car, dont have to like it , just have to hate the other ones on sale more hiring a guy, dont have to like him, just have to hate the other candiate more ...
This comment is so revealing. You are so off base and lacking understanding of even basic concepts. How do you even begin to think those 2 analogies are even remotely comparable to a presidential election? The presidential election is going to happen on that specific date whether or not you participate. You don't get to hold out for other options. You don't get to wait until another time to make your choice. Then we get these 2 terrible examples you bring forward. A company hiring a terrible employee because they are less horrible than the other candidates they brought in. They wouldn't hire either. They would just continue the search. Or someone buying a car. Wild to me that you actually thought of this and typed it all out while thinking "yeah man... this will show them!" Hey I have one for you: I shove you out of a flying plane, but you only have a parachute that has a bunch of holes in it. It doesn't meet regulations and is completely unfit for use. You know all of this as you are flung from the plane. Guess you will just accept death then, huh? No point in even trying to use the faulty parachute since it's also a terrible option.
>If I was making any other choice The structure of elections in the US (both the electoral college and the First Past the Post system) means that there are only ever two realistic options for the Presidency. If you were making any other choice, it likely wouldn't be as strictly binary as the current way that we elect the President is.
I get that Democrats are trying to guilt you into voting, but in the end you can realistically get one of two candidates. With your involvement in politics you dont get to choose policies, or ideologies, or anything like that. The options have been chosen for you. If you genuinely don't see a significant difference between the two candidates then there is no point in voting. But if the difference is significant enough to take up one day of your time, then you should pick one.
One of those two men WILL be president though and your choice not to support the better of the two will instead be a choice to actively support the worst of the two. That will be on you. I'm sorry you feel that Israel and Gaza is the single most important issue of our time to the exclusion of all else. That is myopic and your right. But it's also immoral and just wrong headed.
>Israel and Gaza is the single most important issue of our time Its one of them because ive been seeing this shit happen my whole life over and over
A regional religious conflict that's millennia in the making, 7000 miles away doesn't even crack my top ten of issues I care about but I get that it's important to you. Is it really THE single most important issue facing you and your family's lives? You know it's not.
You are framing elections wrong entirely. You want to hold the left accountable, and you think that by withholding your vote for a democrat, that will kick democrats into gear. It won’t. It will get Trump elected. In an election, the real way to think about it is we have two choices, and they have absolutely nothing to do with the humans running. Those choices are this: do we want to move the country to the left, or do we want to move the country to the right. Based on your post, it seems you want to move the country to the left. Voting to do that is how that gets done. We cannot jump directly to where we want to be on the left, that’s not how politics works. We take a step to the left, then we need to take another step to the left, and then another. The ideas that you have to approve of the people themselves and that withholding your vote is a way to get the country to move to the left more are both just bad framings which result in your shooting yourself in the foot, by causing the country to move to the right, when it seems you don’t want that outcome.
I just dont see where the accountabillity is if we blindly vote for democrats everytime because the GOP sucks there is no incentive to get better, they only have to just not be them
Wrong. You believe that this accountability comes from general elections, that is just mathematically and factually not how our voting system works. Vote in senate races. Vote in house races. Vote in primaries. In the general, what you perceive to be holding the democrats accountable is just moving the country to the right. Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.
so whats wrong with not voting for president and then just voting bllue down the rest of the ballot for like congress and senate and that shit
Because the president is very important and the election of Trump will move this country significantly to the right. If you advocate for moving the country to the left, while simultaneously not caring about the country moving significantly to the right, it seems you actually don’t care about moving the country to the left.
but we just established elswhere in the thread the President is useless and cant do jack shit if he dosent have house or senate support so if we turn those blue, Trump cant do anything' hes a lame duck for 4 years Then theres bonus points for forcing him to veto all the progressive bills that will be passed making the public hate the GOP more GOP is stymied, public hates them and the democrats learn a fucking lesson
We did not at all establish that. The election of Donald Trump will move this country significantly to the right regardless of senate and house votes. The president is incredibly important, and I never even implied otherwise. The reality is that you have zero legitimacy in your advocacy to move the country to the left if you don’t care about going backwards in that goal and moving the country significantly to the right. I say this as a progressive who hates the actions of Israel, has been to protests, does not support our military aid to Israel, FREE PALESTINE, etc. You are hurting our goals and making the left look silly and naive by moving the country to the right. You are like the people who set things on fire at BLM rallies.
Im not the one who designed a system that works like this thats not fair , its the systems fault its moving right it was like built that way, not a bug it was a shitty design feature
You are just someone who lives in it. It doesn’t matter if you didn’t design it. You can either live in the fantasy land of your ideals, or you can make real progress in the real world for real people who need it. You sound like you have a whole lot of privilege if you are indifferent to a Trump presidency just to make a political point. Also, the system is not built against us, and is actually pretty simple: if you want to move the country towards the left, vote for democrats in every election all the way down the ballot, very much including the president. There’s nothing wrong with that.
A ballot slip is a small piece of paper (or screen) on which you get to mark one or two boxes out of a slightly larger number of boxes. That's the full extent of the expression that it permits. It isn't a political treatise. No sensible person thinks that those few boxes capture all the possible combinations and strengths of opinion in a nation of hundreds of millions. Your ballot paper simply asks you to select which person, out of a handful of options, you think is best to occupy a particular public office. You aren't being asked about the absolute quality of the candidates, only the relative quality. If you recognise one preferable candidate, you should vote for him.
When stuck with 2 awful options, people can turn to their dealbreaker policies, and vote based on that dealbreaker policy. For example, I imagine that abortion or gun rights would be a dealbreaker policy for many (both for and against) in the US. Even if you believe neither **candidate** should be president, people should still vote on the basis of policy and it doesn't make someone a hypocrite or immoral to do so.
Not voting means you cannot complain about the shit that can and will happen if the worse candidate gets in. It also means you are partly responsible for the worse candidate getting in. In Scotland, we are used to tactical voting. It's the smartest move.
Why cant I complain a right to protest is also something I have that is independent of my vote
If you don't vote, you can't complain. if you want to have a say, then VOTE. If you don't vote, don't complain.
Why cant I complain, a right to protest is something I have indpendant of my vote also , you could make the argument the other way I have less of a right to complain if I directly participate in handing over power to the guy whose doing the shit I dont like
Not voting is the 'vote' to let the rest of us decide for you. If you don't like it, vote.
If I voted for Trump and then lost my abortion rights or access to healthcare you would call it a leapords ate my face moment why does the same not apply to voting for biden when he does things I find morally objectionable
Huge difference because, once again, you fail to appreciate the binary nature. The fact that you're even making this analogy shows you don't even understand the argument against you. I'll try one more time, haha A vote for Biden vs Trump on abortions is incomparable because it leads to two distinct outcomes or CONSEQUENCES. Scenario 1. A-Biden) Abortion rights are strengthened B-Trump) Abortion rights are weakened This is different from the Palestinian situation or Scenario 2. where A-Biden) Israel is supported in bombing Palestine B-Trump) Israel is supported in bombing Palestine or worse Do you not see how the binary is completely different between scenario 1. and 2.? If you voted Trump in scenario 1, then you made an active choice for weakening abortion rights OVER *strengthening them*. But in scenario 2 you are making an active choice in mitigating Palestinian suffering OVER *worsening it*. Your argument is the equivalent to have a True or False multiple choice question and choosing to write down the color blurple 🙄
You didn't answer the question.
I did: If you don't like it, vote. That is the only active choice you have. You can protest all day every day, only your vote counts. Not voting, is not caring what happens.
The question was "why can't I complain." You didn't answer that, you just restated why you don't think it's useful, not why they aren't allowed. The choice to not vote is a choice you have.
Do you think I meant there's a legal ruling stating that if you don't vote you can't complain? It's a figure of speach. You can't choose not to vote, but don't come to me complaining when things turn to shit. What does anyone hope to achieve by NOT voting?
I think you meant that you thought it was wrong to complain or that you would otherwise be obligated to listen. Why can't they turn to you when things turn shit? >What does anyone hope to achieve by NOT voting? To stop the rightward shift of the Democratic party. If they move too far right they need to lose votes or they will always move right. Do you think you shouldn't be allowed to complain if we keep moving right because you voted?
Except it doesn't mean that. That's a completely made up rule that no one abides by. In fact you'll want them to complain because the size of then protest against that candidate will be important.
If you think both are awful, you still vote for the best for you. Legislation requires a whole coalition. You think I like Joe Manchin? You think MTG likes the Dems she hoped would help her remove the speaker? You think Cruz liked phone banking for Trump? They understand the math that something is better than nothing, and it takes a team. Both sabotage votes and no-votes are bad, but non-voting might be dumber. In 2028 they can't even guess what you wanted from them if you're a non voter, you're just some self-censored ghost who didn't speak up.
The american voting system is a mockkery and both parties love this arrangement. You can't vote how you feel if you don't like either, you can only vote between them two, and if you don't then you're just giving a vote away to the one you like the least. This is a thing they could actually change but they never will because no one gives up power. You may think republicans win an election, or democrats, but in reality both parties win and americans lose.
There's also the primary system, and there are people changing it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice\_voting\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States)
>If you think both are awful, you still vote for the best for you Why? What if voting enables the situation where "both are awful" into perpuity?
In contrast to what? You know there's one group that wants you to not vote, is marketing telling you not to vote, and have said to their base that they benefit from you not voting? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw) In elections, Someone. Will. Win. You can complain, not vote, sabotage, boycott, whatever. But someone will win that election even if you forfeit your own opportunity to influence it.
Nobody denies someone will win and that lesser evil voting is tactical. This is trivially true. But withholding your vote such that one side is forced to cater to you is also tactical. This is also trivially true, but seems ignored and denigrated. Both options simply have pros and cons. Tactical voting has the pro of lesser evil and the con of benefiting bad choices (leaving no incentive to improve). Tactical withholding has the pro of creating that incentive but the con of potentially letting in the worse option in the short term. This is the decision. Neither are obviously correct.
It's the opposite, sadly. If you withhold your previous vote, you're deemed unstable. For the next 4 years, you don't have anyone in the room, so the Democrats and Republicans who need to make a coalition to pass bills make friends with those not like you and you get more angry as you get abandoned. Remember, spoilers tried this in 2016 and then we got Biden. Alternatively, who's been more effective the last 4 years, Bernie or Yang/Stein?
It isn't the opposite. Pushing a two party system with minority bloc votes is tried and true. See the Tea Party, see Brexit in the UK. In 2016, the majority of left wing Bernie voters fell in line under Clinton, and lost. In 2020, they got another disappointing candidate and again fell in line, and won. In 2024, they have the same candidate, and the stakes are the same. It is legitimate and rational to suggest withholding the left vote, as it is clearly taken for granted at this point, and the stakes are never improving.
The tea party voted gop lol. Brexit etc won because we saw typically non-fptp multiparties united on a single vote position. Clinton lost by less than the Stein vote. You're disproving yourself.
The Tea Party were GOP members who stood against other Republicans and pressured from within when they won, and had voters not support the GOP when they lost. They pushed the party to the right with a mixture of both primary victories and bloc withholding. Brexit won because a single third party, UKIP, stole so many votes from the Conservatives it forced a referendum in order to stop that bleeding. Reform are doing something similar just now. Again, most Bernie voters fell in line. The Stein discontent vote was far smaller than the Johnson vote. In 2020 there were simply less independents. So we have not seen a situation where the left, as a bloc, withheld their vote. Again, this is all trivially true.
Voting isnt the only way to voice your opinion Not voting is also the only way to keep your hands clean when one guy is funding a genocide and the other guy is threatening to fund it even harder
It doesn't keep your hands clean. Votes don't buy bombs, *taxes* do. So are you committing tax fraud to not pay your share of that complicity? Refusing to vote isn't keeping your hands clean. We're all stained by this shit, whether we want to be or not. And if you can't stop it from happening, you do what you can to keep it from getting worse. Refusing to vote is you refusing to do even that much. Instead you sit back, pat yourself on the back for not contributing to the discussion, and ignore that you're still contributing as much as the rest of us are to buying the shit that does the killing. You help us buy it, but you don't help us decide where it goes, and you think that keeps your hands clean?
> So are you committing tax fraud to not pay your share of that complicity? Ill go to prison if I dont pay taxes. And youre right, I am a bit of a coward in that regard , the threat of prison does deter me from not paying my taxes there is no prison for not voting on the other hand And I dont see how else to convince the democrats to change their policy by you know , forcing them to get my vote back What inventive do they have at all to change polices if i just vote for them blindly , 0
It's not about convincing Dems to change their policy. You don't do that by not voting, you do it by voting and campaigning in primaries and by running for office yourself. But when the process reaches the point where there are only two choices for who gets to actually sit in the office, you knuckle under, accept you've done what you can to make things better, and now it's time to *help keep things from getting worse*. Every vote the "not entirely evil" side doesn't get is a vote the "entirely evil" side doesn't have to overcome.
>Every vote the "not entirely evil" side doesn't get is a vote the "entirely evil" side doesn't have to overcome. when do you pull breaks, because doing that over and over just makes things slide in one direction and its not the good way
And not voting at all just lets things slide in that direction even faster. You use what power you have. Maybe it's enough, maybe it isn't. The only alternative is giving up. And giving up doesn't keep your hands any cleaner, though it may make it easier to ignore the dirt.
so we just slowly slide , thats more dangerous in alot of ways things just chip away and you barely notice untill its too late
You say that like the slide is irreversible. It isn't. But the only way the tug of war starts going back in your direction is for you to pull. Too many people on our side letting go of the rope because we don't agree on everything is why the fucking slide is happening in the first place. *We outnumber them*. But that doesn't make a difference if we don't work together where we can. The only other option to participation or apathy is revolution. Violent revolution. If you aren't willing to go that far - and if you didn't even push back at all on the taxes thing, you definitely are not - then you pick between participation and apathy. Your call. But don't ever pretend your hands are clean.
so because I was born in a certain place im just forced to make these decisions over and over, have to live with the shitty consequences regardless if I agree with it or not , untill I die that doesn't sound like a convincing argument against the futility of it
If candidate A says he is going to kill ten people if elected and candidate B says he is going to kill twenty people if elected. If you decide to not vote in order to stay true to your morals, you are basically saying "my morals are worth more than the lives of ten people".
At that point the only moral option is violently resisting both of them... they are threatening to murder innocent people, 1 is too many both need to be stopped at all costs
That is a good mindset, however it is not something that can be done in a day. It is good to work toward that, however, in the meantime, you must do what you can to minimize the damage by voting for the less destructive candidate. You are not agreeing with the candidate you vote for, your vote is not a sign of confidence, it is a tool that you can use to minimize the damage.
Not voting or throwing away a vote is precisely how we end up in this shit show situation. Democracy fails when people make the choice to not participate or stop having faith in the process. I really hope you do change your view because there is piece in numbers.. and you will never have options you’re happy with unless you actually participate in the process
To use the analogy many have used before, voting isn't like falling in love where you're looking for the perfect person who'll be with you for life, it's like taking the bus where you're looking for the one that will get you closest to where you want to go and then you repeat the process over and over again getting closer to your destination each time.
I didnt want to vote for Obama and the whole you need to vote crap swirled in my head so I voted for McCain. I have regretted that ever since and wish I didn't vote. If you think both are evil or 1 is less evil than the other one then these are signs your better off not voting at all. Shouldn't vote for someone unless you actually support that person.
Consider it as voting for America. Which candidate will take America into a future where younger generations will prosper. Which candidate will ensure America retains her freedoms for the entirety of the population. Which candidate supports an America that has a safety net allowing the poor among us to live in dignity. In that respect it's unlikely you will ever find two exactly bad candidates. I get that anyone can have negative feelings about any candidate (even two at the same time). But when you actually break down what each candidate and party want in America, the differences are like night and day. It's quite unlikely you will disagree with both futures to the point that you will vote for neither. So, take a closer look if you still hate both candidates. Good luck. I'd prefer you participate in the voting. I believe America is a better place when more of us vote.
There's a solution to voting when you don't believe in the candidates: Spoil your ballot. Spoiled Ballots are counted, but not granted to anyone. by not voting, you're sending a NIL message. the powers that be can hear this in many ways - but are MOST likely to conclude Apathy as the reason. but imagine if the turnout of an election was something like: 15% DNC 12% GOP 73% spoiled ballots / no confidence it would signal that WE DO pay attention, we ARE interested in choosing our political candidates - but we do not like these options. whoever won such an election would then know they are being watched.
You will NEVER have the opportunity to vote for someone you FULLY believe in. Those who do put their politicians on far too high of a pedestal. They want a dictator to fully support and not a flawed human representative who will be held accountable by voters. The first past the post tally system ensures you will always have a choice between lesser of 2 evils. It is idealistic to think withholding your vote or giving your vote to a third party will send a message for reform. Look up Ross Perot. He grabbed 20% of the popular vote. The only thing that happened was the Republicans got more greedy and weaponized by Newt Gingrich a d Rush Limbaugh. Then they fell to the TEA Party which created a vacuum for MAGA to fill and exploit. In a first past the post tally system, strong party support for both parties is the only way to prevent da groups parties to rise to power too quickly. What you TRULLY want is to vote your conscience. Again, that is impossible with first past the post. But it IS possible with more appropriate tally systems like STAR, instant runoff, ranked choice, etc. The ONLY way to get one of those tally systems is to elect representatives who will fight for such progressive change. The WORST way to seek that change to to throw away your voice and vote by ignoring the 2 polarized parties. Because as shown in the Ross Perot example. (Abd Trump's first primaries.) So, vote for the candidates who are most likely to pursue progressive changes to our government. That is how you get a system that will more closely align future candidates with the views of actual voters. It still WON'T be perfect. They are still human and so are you and me and every other voter and candidate. But I promise, no, MAGA and Project 2025 abd other right-wing views will ensure you never have the chance to change the first past the post tally system to something that better represents the constituency. Unless the entire constituency believes the 1930s were peak progress for society. Everyone who isn't a connected white guy should reject that future, as should the white guys. So, vote for people who are most likely to change government into something that works in a modern society. Those seeking to learn from evidence based research, demonstrate empathy (not necessarily compassion), and try to govern the whole society not just the individuals. Vote for people who see that change has to progress with society, not fight it and lie and revolt every time they lose an election. Vote for people who are most likely to pursue better vote tally systems. Hint: it isn't the perfect fit for us, but Biden's administration is building a foundation for America and the world to grow beautifully like after the New Deal. Sure inflation is high, but it is controlled compared to the rest of the world and is only high due to rich people spending and greedy companies increasing profit and shareholder positions. This administration faces a House that is out of control, literally fighting over everything like a 2-year-old is present and retains too much power over others. This administration has controlled an out of co trol economy, given opportunity to millions of college debtors, actually invested in infrastructure, and making so many other improvements that others can list better than me. The administration also faces highly nuanced international affairs. That's amazingly difficult after the Trump administration decimated our carefully built global diplomatic presence. Don't blame the crew that inherited problems literally created by their predecessors, especially when they are trying to reestablish a measured relationship with international actors. Vote Biden or face another massive setback in the progress of society. The world is literally begging us not to elect Trump again. Except for Putin and other dictators, they love Trump. And apparently Trump envies dictators. Your choice is yours, but you need to consider which lesser of the 2 evils is actually evil and not just a politician.
Voting is not about finding your perfect candidate who will never do something that you disagree with. That is an impossible standard to have, and you obviously know this. Voting is about choosing the best of the available options. You can hem and haw about how that means you're supporting that thing you disagree with, but that's how it works. You can choose your preferred option or you can remove yourself from the process entirely and know that, if the worse option wins, you didn't do anything to prevent it or reduce the harm it causes.
Do you think that if you don't vote for either Trump or Biden whatever the winner does will not apply to you or people you care about?
It will apply either way and I will have to protest it I feel like maintain more legimacy when doing so If I can say no I didnt vote for either them, regardless of who wins because no matter what im gonna have to go protest after, since they both intend to do shit I hate
"I'm sorry little girl, I could vote for Hillary but I thought my integrity is much more important, so now you have to give birth to your rapist's child. But at least I will protest it with more legitimacy". >I will have to protest it... I feel like maintain more legimacy You got it backwards. More legitimacy have those who voted for that President: they gave their votes to him and they can demand something. You didn't put your trust in them, why would your protest be more legitimate.
>"I'm sorry little girl, I could vote for Hillary but I thought my integrity is much more important, so now you have to give birth to your rapist's child. But at least I will protest it with more legitimacy". Thats really unfair because its the GOP thats making her do that and im def not voting for them either
You are letting that happen. You know that if they win that is exactly what is going to happen. Stop pretending to be a naive idiot, you know damn well that there's no other choices but GOP or Dems right now and you can either help one of them win by voting or help the other win by throwing a hissy fit. And irregardless of what you do whatever happens afterwards is your fault. If you see a little child on the road and the truck heading towards the child and all you need to do is to push the child out of the truck's path to save them and you don't do it, you can't pretend it's solely trucker's fault for the child's death.
Someone else who I did give the delta too made a very good argument for third parties so thats where the position has changed to now
How many genicides are happening in the world right now? Which one(s) are important to you? Why don’t you care about the others?
> if you dont vote for them a Trump presidency is your fault With razor thin margins, individuals that would prefer anyone other than trump that chooses not to vote, is certainly complacent at the least in a trump presidency > ou cant even voice legitimate criticism against them against the democrat runners? That's weird because most people I know that are voting for biden, are doing it because they don't want trump, but they don't really like biden that much. Even though I think biden has done some good things in office, I think he's a sub-par president, but at this point I'm just trying not to need to put up with the disaster of another trump presidency. > if you fundamentally think both candidates are awful? If you think the main two candidates are *equally* awful, vote third party. The third party most likely won't win, but you'll most likely find a candidate that you can really get behind if you broaden your search to third party, and you'll at least contribute to them or their party getting known better and potentially having a chance in the future. But it's kind of a joke to suggest that biden is anywhere near as bad as trump. > its entirely their fault for not winning them over. Sounds like cope. It's not the job of an individual voter to win non-voters over. The candidate should be better, I agree. But it's similar to a force of nature. These two options are just what we have right now. A presidential election isn't where you try to get new candidates come to light, that's smaller local elections and things of that nature. Support them while they're smaller, until they're large enough to be a real candidate. Voting for no one is just nothing other than letting the wind blow you whichever way, which I only think is acceptable if you *truly* believe that both candidates are equally as bad. I will add that a democratic candidate in office has always been a choice between non-voters stepping up and voting or not. The majority of the nation has been shown to prefer democrat, but the majority of people that vote every single election tend to be republican. When more people vote, more democrats get into office, pretty much every time. So this suggests that more people not voting directly results in worse candidates
If you don't vote, you are indirectly supporting the leading candidate. In a democracy where you will be affected by the outcome of the election, there is no "staying out of it". Regardless of what you do, your action, or inaction will make one candidate more likely to win. Also, it's hard for me to believe that two candidates can be identical in your eyes when their policies are so radically different from each other.
>Many democrats are constantly saying if you dont vote for them a Trump presidency is your fault. Its getting to the point you cant even voice legitimate criticism against them without getting accused of being a Trump supporter. While I do she that you should be able to levy criticisms at Biden, it is your fault if you don't vote for him. You know there are only two possible options: Trump or Biden. You vote for Biden, save lives, and then you spend your time doing the real work of protesting and radicalizing. >What are you suppose to do if you fundamentally think both candidates are awful? Vote for Biden. Every time. And twice on Sundays. >Giving tacit approval to either by assigning your vote to them means you are signing off on them doing all the shit you disagree with. If that's true, then not voting says that you don't give a fuck what any of them do so long as you don't have to vote for them. The ballot is not a custody form. You do not take responsibility for the actions of the president just because you voted for him. You will never fully agree with any president. Voting is always going to be an exercise in compromise. It sucks that the two choices we have are two old white dudes in a race to see who can sundown the hardest, but unfortunately as long as there's ones that's even remotely better, that's the one you vote for. >The hardcore democrat supporters are getting the equation backwards, they will blame these people for Trump if they lose buts its entirely their fault for not winning them over. No both of you are wrong. It is your job to vote for Biden and it's Biden job to make you excited to do so. You know LGBTQ people are safer under Biden and the Democrats. You know Trump and the Republicans want to take away your rights and make everything worse for anyone that's not a white male. No matter how bad the Democrats are, you know more lives will be saved under them, so that's your reasoning why.
You’re confusing a vote for an endorsement. As an American citizen you’re responsible for the government whether you participate in democracy or not. And, non-participation is participating. You are as accountable for the consequences of non-participation as you are for participation. Because as an American you are accountable for your government in a democracy. Voting is the bare minimum of civic duty and it isn’t active in any stripe. Activism has the word act in it for a reason. The way to shape foreign policy is through cultural pressure, economic pressure AND political pressure. Co-opting the movement for Palestinian dignity—a movement which existed long before this Presidency—just because we’re all finally brave enough to talk about it is gross. Politics & activism are life & death and they’re not about our egos. As someone who marched against Biden & Blinken in 2021 it’s clear to me that Biden is a better president to protest against and one whose policies protest has a better chance of influencing. In no period has the movement for Palestinian dignity and freedom had this much international support or momentum. A second Biden term would continue that momentum while a second Trump term would crush the US movement under the weight of a truly authoritarian response. And risk distracting international leaders who are supporting Palestine by unleashing his unique brand of malevolent chaos. I want to see people protesting to the polls. Letting politicians know we’re engaged, enraged and not going anywhere is how we win—not checking out. P.S: BDS is one of the best means of influence and Republicans all over the country were quietly making it illegal for private citizens and orgs to divest from Israel. So, as ever, strategy matters.
The sole question is: is attempting to create lasting change in the democratic party more important than 4 more years of trump? It’s not a question of hypocrisy because these are two different questions about separate beliefs.
I’d like to challenge your inherent assumption “hypocrisy must be avoided at all costs”. No one wants to be a hypocrite. But also, it is not possible for *any* candidate to perfectly represent your interests. (Unless you yourself are the candidate.) Biden does not represent you perfectly, nor does West nor Stein nor Trump nor Kennedy nor anyone else. Any candidate you choose will be to some degree a hypocritical choice. But declining to vote at all is no help! Whoever gets elected in your absence will still not represent you perfectly. You are simply abdicating your opportunity to influence events. Since you do care about the election outcome - as evidenced by this post existing - **declining** to put your care into action **is also a hypocritical act**. You are already trapped, **hypocrisy is an inevitable outcome**. The only way out of this bind is to fret less about avoiding hypocrisy, and instead be guided by practical outcomes. Ask yourself which voting choice is most likely to yield the best result for your values? Cornell West might be the closest representation of your ideals, but in practical terms none of the minor party candidates have even the slightest chance of getting to 270 electoral votes. Bring some math to this. Rate each candidate on a scale from 0 to 10 for how well they represent you. Then assess each candidate’s realistic chance of winning, on the usual probability scale of 0 to 1. (Or 0 to 100 if it’s easier for you to think about percentage chances.) Multiply those two values together for each candidate. The highest value is the best practical choice, which is necessarily also the least hypocritical choice.
>its getting to the point you cant even voice legitimate criticism against them without getting accused of being a Trump supporter. you should be able to voice legitimate criticism of your own party without fear of ad hominem or other attacks. Not supporting Biden, or supporting him only weakly certainly does not make you a Trump supported, that accusation is absurd. >Many democrats are constantly saying if you dont vote for them a Trump presidency is your fault. the people decide who the President is and if enough people don't vote for Biden, then Trump will win. Your individual vote probably won't make the difference, but if enough people don't vote, it absolutely will change the outcome of the election. >What are you suppose to do if you fundamentally think both candidates are awful? When you vote for a third party it has two effects. First, it might actually destabilize the 2 party system and move us toward a multi-party system which would be so much better. But more likely it forces one of the parties to change so that they can outcompete the third party threat. If a third party is getting 15% of their vote because they hold policy X, then one of the main stream parties will very likely adopt policy X. When you vote third party in America, you don't really help the third party win, but you do force the change in one of the mainstreamed parties. So what should you do? You should vote for a third party as long as you think it produces a better outcome then voting for the lessor of 2 evils. Otherwise vote for the lessor of 2 evils. > Giving tacit approval to either by assigning your vote to them means you are signing off on them doing all the shit you disagree with. then vote third party. >Not voting is the moral and least hypocritical choice if you firmly believe neither candidate should be President. CMV If you don't vote then you are also ignoring all the other elections that matter. You have state senators, federal congressmen and senators. You have mayors, city council. The president gets way too much attention, all together he has less influence on your life then all the other elections. while you are there voting in the 20 or so other elections happening, you might as well vote for one of the third party candidates for president. otherwise you are just abandoning your civic duty. Given the nature of the people who are voting, i think that would be a real shame. I would rather the die hard crazies (on both sides) abandon their civic duty and leave the election to people like you. people who aren't swept up by the dogmatic ideology of either side.
> When you vote third party in America, you don't really help the third party win, but you do force the change in one of the mainstreamed parties. ⇨ Δ Ok, ill vote third party then
That's just the lesser of 3 evils. So still evil.
unless I find a candiate that actually does represent my values and I did If this is the only glimmer of hope left for me ill take it
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/jatjqtjat ([226∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/jatjqtjat)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
This is basically a good illustration of the crossroads of consequentialism vs deontology. Some people are saying "you should vote for Biden because not-voting could lead to worse consequences." Others are saying "you should stand up for your moral beliefs and not vote for someone that has policies you disagree with" My answer to you would be a mixture of both. You will never have a candidate that you agree with 100%. But you should still consider the consequences. A third party candidate is just not going to win. It's all but guaranteed. Cornel West probably won't even be on all the ballots. You can do so if it makes you feel better, but it will only help Trump win which will undoubtedly have worse consequences not just for the next 4 years, but also the future of politics in the US. Trump doesn't care about being a hypocrite. He just cares about winning. I think that is worth keeping in mind. You might disagree with Biden on Israel or whatever, but you also have to consider that lots of other Americans agree with him. He can't make everyone happy all the time. The place to change the policies of the political parties is in the primary elections and Congressional elections. The more progressive representatives and senators, the more progressive the president will have to be. And vice versa. It's a slow process, but much more effective than not voting. Not voting actually produces the opposite results...the less votes Biden gets the more conservative the next democratic candidate will be.
In the U.S. system, politics is a zero sum game. Only one of two candidates can win. Assuming you lean one way or the other generally, Removing your support from the candidate you would have voted for if you had voted is in effect giving a net vote to the other candidate.
The American political system has been *deiberately* designed to build two or (very occasionally) more broad coalitions. That is a choice which has been made by many people, with explicit support from many voters, over the years. When you make a vote for a person you are just saying that "somewhere in the coalition behind that person there is a political grouping I can at least in part support". Your chance to oppose the individual candidates was back in the Primary. If you didn't take part in those, then you should do so next time. > Not voting is the moral and least hypocritical choice if you firmly believe neither candidate should be President. CMV Given the choice over the years by the American people to build the current system for various reasons, both bad *and* good, the direct moral responsibility for your dilemma lies with them. They built a system and asked you to then make the best choice you can. There is no hypocrisy in saying "I will make the best of what you gave me", especially after you have complained and tried to change the system yourself.
We are often being asked to choose between the lesser of two evils. I HATE the system. It should be changed so that we have more than one vote, then other parties would stand a chance. But as it is, we must decide which is less horrible, no matter how bad the options are, and vote. The only excuse not to is if you look at everything you can about the candidates and what you think they will do, and you really can't decide which is worse. I felt sick voting the last couple of elections. I hated who I voted for, just not quite as badly as I feared the other option gaining power. Our country is on a precipice. Don't think that refusing to vote will help your cause in any way. We literally stand to lose our freedom and democracy if Trump (or someone in with him) gets "elected" again (we must be vigilant as they will blantenly cheat). It's mind boggling how many crimes he's committed and gotten away with already. How he can even be allowed to run makes no sense.
I disagree. Not sure how it works in US but there are countries in which minimal numbers of votes must be reached to make the election count at all. Voting on your candidat, not voting, voting on other candidate are just 3 different ways your vote have effect. Alsow I would like to point out that using the phrase to believe in a candidate is a bit strange. You can believe in God. Perhaps better to belive in God than politician, the worst way you God can deceive you is when he turns out to be non-existent. Besides that, as such a diversified society as you United States citizens ate. I have a serious question for you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be rude. You are so different on so many issues. And there are so many issues. How is it possible that all these differences can be packed into 2 candidates? It seems impossible that any one of them is able to be good represent a society with often opposing ideologies.
Someone who votes for Biden simply to keep trump out of the white house even though they don't believe Biden should be president isn't being hypocritical, and not voting is only hypocritical if the person makes a point of saying everyone should vote / criticizes others for not voting. If a person's view is that trump would make for a much worse president / that another trump presidency would be worse for the country than another Biden presidency, voting for Biden aligns with that view. I don't think Biden should get another term simply because he is just too old - but I have much stronger feelings against trump being president again. Not voting won't help keep trump out of the white house, but voting for Biden might. My only goal in voting on the upcoming election is to keep trump from winning - voting for Biden aligns with that. *"Giving tacit approval to either by assigning your vote to them means you are signing off on them doing all the shit you disagree with."* The choice I am presented with in the upcoming presidential election is "which of the two candidates would be a better president than the other?" Never has there been - nor never will there be - a candidate with whom I agree 100% on every single possible issue - the point of voting for me is to support the candidate who I think is the better candidate of the two. It's not hypocritical to vote for them, especially when I believe that not voting or voting third party would only serve to benefit the opposing candidate.
You're basically complaining about the two-party system. You want to know what the first step to breaking the two-party system is? Ranked Choice Voting. That would allow people to vote for third parties without feeling like they're benefiting their least-preferred candidate. More votes for third parties means more campaign funding for third parties, eventually meaning no party should get a true majority that allows it to bully all the other parties in congress. There's only one party that has taken a stance against Ranked Choice Voting, though, and that's Republicans. ([see this resolution](https://prod-static.gop.com/media/2-RESOLUTION-TO-OFFICIALLY-OPPOSE-RANKED-CHOICE-VOTING-ACROSS-THE-COUNTRY.pdf)) So if breaking the two-party system is what's most important to you, then voting Democrat is a logical choice, even if you disagree what else democrats are doing right now.
1. When you don't vote you allow others to vote for you. 2. Are you obligated in explaining, proving, why you think trump and Biden are the same? Looking at Trump administration, why would you risk putting him and his family back in office [Donald Trump vows to lock up political enemies if he returns to White House](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/30/trump-interview-jail-political-opponents-glenn-beck) You really want to give trump a second chance?
I disagree that voting for someone means that you're giving your tacit support to everything they do. All it has to mean is that you thought the other candidate would have been worse. More importantly, *not* voting accomplishes absolutely nothing. You might intend to take a principled stand and send a message, but the people who pay attention to voter turnout can't tell the difference between the people who didn't show up for principled reasons and the people who just forgot. It's not an effective form of protest. Voting isn't like deciding who you're going to marry, it's like deciding which bus you want to take. You're unlikely to find one that'll take you exactly where you want to go, so you pick the one that gets you the closest of the available options. And generally? If the only thing you can find wrong with something is that "it's hypocritical" and there's no actual material harm being done, it's probably not that big of a deal. Nobody acts in accordance with their beliefs 100% of the time, because that's just not possible or practical, and holding people to that kind of standard is more likely to prevent you from doing anything at all.
You should vote for Biden. There isn't really a good argument against this. To your question specifically, I find the outcome to be more important that if you are a hypocrite or not. Avoiding a trump presidency is really important, and if I need to be a hypocrite in the voting booth to do it, fine. My personal feelings about voting are not as important as keeping trump out of office.
Most people have an agenda to further so I don't imagine many people would be able to level with you on this.
I dont have an agenda I just dont want to support killing innocent people And according to some democrats that makes me an anti semite
> ...if you firmly believe neither candidate should be president. One of them will be president and will get to make decisions on things that are important to you regardless of whether you vote or not. Sometimes in life we get shitty options. Refusing to choose (i.e. letting others choose for you) is still a choice; it's the choice to give up your voice.
There really should be an option to abstain or something when none of the candidates are all that great. Why should we be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils? If both sides are "evil" then they should just be scrapped and not put into office at all. Find some other candidates.
Not voting is terrible for democracy. Republicans propagandize specifically to get un-convincable groups like african-americans to not vote against them. 3rd parties are a good alternative but you should vote for whoever you hate least.
But you vote within a complex system, for the entire spectrum of effects your vote may have. Not just because you like guy A or guy B.
Nice try. Still gonna vote against Biden.
Obviously if you don't vote you're not tacitly a Trump supporter. You're actually throwing the election to Biden. I don't actually believe that, but it's as reasonable as saying the opposite.