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?
Alright, fair enough I guess. I used to think this way too, but I changed my mind about it. I don’t think that voting is actually value neutral, but rather affirmative consent for what the people you vote for then go on to do. There are practical aspects to it - I think it sucks the energy out of taking other actions outside of voting, and gives the winner of the election legitimacy in the eyes of normal people who are kind of checked out - but beyond that I think it morally ties you to the program of the party you voted for. I don’t think someone has to be perfect to be able to vote for them, but there is a line beyond which it is too far. After that, the only thing left to do is to take actions outside voting and not get distracted by the circus.
I disagree. I don’t think it really sucks any energy out of anything else at all, it’s one or two hours every couple years. And I don’t think the handful of people who would otherwise not vote would shift the perception of normal people.
Not do I think strategic voting morally ties you to anything. It’s a harm reduction action. You didn’t have to get distracted by the circus, and nothing stops you from taking actions outside voting.
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?
Alright, fair enough I guess. I used to think this way too, but I changed my mind about it. I don’t think that voting is actually value neutral, but rather affirmative consent for what the people you vote for then go on to do. There are practical aspects to it - I think it sucks the energy out of taking other actions outside of voting, and gives the winner of the election legitimacy in the eyes of normal people who are kind of checked out - but beyond that I think it morally ties you to the program of the party you voted for. I don’t think someone has to be perfect to be able to vote for them, but there is a line beyond which it is too far. After that, the only thing left to do is to take actions outside voting and not get distracted by the circus.
I disagree. I don’t think it really sucks any energy out of anything else at all, it’s one or two hours every couple years. And I don’t think the handful of people who would otherwise not vote would shift the perception of normal people.
Not do I think strategic voting morally ties you to anything. It’s a harm reduction action. You didn’t have to get distracted by the circus, and nothing stops you from taking actions outside voting.