Because if you want anything to change, the pressure has got to be applied in the right direction. If people just keep blaming their neighbours, of course no politician will ever feel like they have to do anything to improve things.
If you want anything to change, you need to take effective actions. The consequence politicians face by taking ineffective actions is maybe not winning their race. The consequence our neighbors face by taking ineffective actions is the erosion of their civil rights.
If you actually want to pressure politicians, you do it by contacting them directly to inform them of their failings, they’re not just going to magically know why you didn’t vote or vote third party.
Protest voting doesn’t apply the pressure you think it does.
If you actually want to pressure politicians, you do it by contacting them directly to inform them of their failings
Sure, that’s a thing you should do
they’re not just going to magically know why you didn’t vote or vote third party
They actually expend substantial effort and sums of money to find this out, there’s nothing magical about it.
Protest voting doesn’t apply the pressure you think it does.
On the other hand, voting for them anyway if they do something absolutely abhorrent and beyond any kind of humanity tells them they can get away with anything and is just a race to the bottom.
They actually expend substantial effort and sums of money to find this out
And yet here we are, so clearly they’re either drawing the wrong conclusions or they just don’t care. Either way, it’s not an effective strategy.
voting for them anyway if they do something absolutely abhorrent and beyond any kind of humanity tells them they can get away with anything and is just a race to the bottom.
Elections don’t care about nominal votes, they only care about margins. Candidates don’t get any extra powers if they win by 1 vote or 1 million. The race is taking place with or without you. You can help the ones moving slower, or resign yourself and your neighbors to the ones moving faster. But protest voting doesn’t stop the race.
Write your representatives, protest, build dual power, organize your community, engage in direct action, run for local office; these are all productive strategies. Vote for ideal candidates in primaries. But in the actual election, vote strategically against the most abhorrent and least humane candidate, or you’re liable to get them.
But in the actual election, vote strategically against the most abhorrent and least humane candidate, or you’re liable to get them.
I understand the appeal of this idea. It makes sense. But bear with me for a minute. Imagine a world where the democratic party really was as bad as the republican party, except they would give one grain of rice more to one prisoner in the concentration camp. Would you vote for that party? Do you have a line at all beyond which you wouldn’t vote for someone?
Sure, every grain of rice helps. If polling indicates that they are the only two parties with a chance of winning, voting for anyone else serves no purpose.
Obviously this would highlight the need to take actions outside voting, but what’s the point of wasting a vote doing nothing, even if all you get is a single grain of rice?
So you got this AND bombs for Israel
Yeah, we did, and the people who purposefully threw the election rather than compromise one bit with what the people wanted are responsible.
And yet we are the ones to suffer the consequences. Who cares who’s “responsible”? What matters is who is affected.
Because if you want anything to change, the pressure has got to be applied in the right direction. If people just keep blaming their neighbours, of course no politician will ever feel like they have to do anything to improve things.
If you want anything to change, you need to take effective actions. The consequence politicians face by taking ineffective actions is maybe not winning their race. The consequence our neighbors face by taking ineffective actions is the erosion of their civil rights.
If you actually want to pressure politicians, you do it by contacting them directly to inform them of their failings, they’re not just going to magically know why you didn’t vote or vote third party.
Protest voting doesn’t apply the pressure you think it does.
Sure, that’s a thing you should do
They actually expend substantial effort and sums of money to find this out, there’s nothing magical about it.
On the other hand, voting for them anyway if they do something absolutely abhorrent and beyond any kind of humanity tells them they can get away with anything and is just a race to the bottom.
And yet here we are, so clearly they’re either drawing the wrong conclusions or they just don’t care. Either way, it’s not an effective strategy.
Elections don’t care about nominal votes, they only care about margins. Candidates don’t get any extra powers if they win by 1 vote or 1 million. The race is taking place with or without you. You can help the ones moving slower, or resign yourself and your neighbors to the ones moving faster. But protest voting doesn’t stop the race.
Write your representatives, protest, build dual power, organize your community, engage in direct action, run for local office; these are all productive strategies. Vote for ideal candidates in primaries. But in the actual election, vote strategically against the most abhorrent and least humane candidate, or you’re liable to get them.
I understand the appeal of this idea. It makes sense. But bear with me for a minute. Imagine a world where the democratic party really was as bad as the republican party, except they would give one grain of rice more to one prisoner in the concentration camp. Would you vote for that party? Do you have a line at all beyond which you wouldn’t vote for someone?
Sure, every grain of rice helps. If polling indicates that they are the only two parties with a chance of winning, voting for anyone else serves no purpose.
Obviously this would highlight the need to take actions outside voting, but what’s the point of wasting a vote doing nothing, even if all you get is a single grain of rice?
But hey, at least they didn’t get Kamala Harris, who would somehow been worse than literal fascism
“You must accept this boot to the neck or we let the crazy guy shoot you,” isn’t the slam dunk argument you think it is.
Yes I’m sure Harris would have been terrible, a real boot to the neck indeed. Better to have Trump instead