Voting for the lesser evil is still evil

Political Memes @lemmy.world

81 86

You're viewing a single thread.

308 comments

I feel as though there's a significant amount of extra info that isn't strictly conveyed here.
The core issue is that you only have 2 real options in america, third parties may as well not exist. So, come election time, your harm reduction option is to vote for the least evil party.
But that's not the way to solve the issue, and neither is abstaining or voting third party, IMO. The way to solve the issue happens between votes. Picketing, protesting, demonstrating, taking action, making noise. You won't solve the broken 2 party system at election time. But you do have to actually get out and take action, not just say that you will and keep letting the overton window shift right.
(Take with a pinch of salt because I'm not american)
- But that’s not the way to solve the issue
  So...... revolution? It worked once before!
  
  I mean sure! Take the whole CEO situation and springboard off that, you find yourselves in circumstances similar to pre-revolution France so the conditions are right.
- I mean, you're not the first one to say thing. People picket, people protest, people make noise. College students are arrested, protests either get Zero media attention (or worse, are regulated to an ineffective location because of regulations) or the protestors switch to disruptive tactics that actually get noticed and are demonized by everyone for it.
  Like I keep hearing this "You have to go out and take action", EVERYONE IS! People are walking up and knocking on people's doors and getting punched in the face. People are outside houses getting cops called on them and arrested. Everyone is now more able to point out the bad actors and exactly how that's effecting the parties and policies.
  You have Bernie Sanders and AOC out protesting and "making noise" in the spot light every damn day.
  third party doesn't work
  you can't solve the 2 party system
  The way to solve the issue happens between votes
  our election cycle is every 2 years or less depending on the occasion. IT IS ALWAYS ELECTION CYCLE IN AMERICAN POLITICS. They have to plan early and extensively to knock off any candidate they don't want (pulling national resources to squash anyone they view "outside" their establishment).
  At this point the "make noise" comments need to reiterate what the end goal is for that make noise. You're setting people up to just be angry and upset and protest the inequality or inefficiencies of our system when that's exactly what the politicians want (it's a feature, not a bug). No amount of protesting, a litany of policies at that, will be effective when the complete political spectrum is against change. Take a look at the Civil Rights Era and the voting that was concluded, it looks completely unlike anything we have now.
  The political parties have strengthened their stranglehold (I've argued in the past that they are "political parties" in name only, they are more incorporated or an oligarch representatives at this point and should be regulated as such). They listen to power only, the power was taken from the working and lower classes a long time ago. We get our shows we can put on, but it doesn't move the needle anymore. It used to at least force them to talk about moving the needle, even that's gone now.
  
  I think its quite obvious that the people I'm advising to get out and take action are the people who... aren't? I'm well aware that action is being taken and that it is growing in numbers, but more needs to be done.
  That aside, how does voting third party or abstaining from voting affect change against the issues you've highlighted above? Because I don't disagree with the issues you've raised.
  
  How exactly does "picketing, protesting, demonstrating, taking action, making noise" affect change against those issues, when the Democrats will just ignore you and get your vote anyway?
  
  I'm really wondering if next election cycle we're gonna hear people say "we've got to vote them in first then pull them left" again. It was a notably absent phrase this past election. Biden most certainly did not move left from his "Fundamentally nothing will change." platform.
  
  Well, I was reliably told by ten million Vote Blue No Matter Who people that there wouldn't be another elections if Trump won, so I guess we'll just never know...
  
  ...and those people call me defeatist. Sheesh!
  
  You don't think you can affect change outside of your vote?
- The core issue is that you only have 2 real options in america, third parties may as well not exist.
  There's false assumptions necessary to reach this conclusion. Typically the false assumption is that the role of a third party is to win. The root cause of making this assumption is often that the scope of evaluation has been limited to one term or cycle.
  
  I'm not convinced that voting for a third party has any positive effect, in one election cycle or over longer time. But I'm open to hearing your perspective.
  
  The false assumption that most make is that one cycle doesn't effect the next.
  However, if a third party garners just 5% of the general election vote for POTUS then their platform and higher quality candidate will be on every ballot in the next cycle.
  If there's a third choice on every ballot then the the third party platform places tremendous and immediate pressure upon the platforms of the two major parties. The third party doesn't actually win unless the other refuse to compromise. Long term, the continued threat is of greater value than a subsequent victory.
  But, the electoral scheme doesn't work unless leftists trust leftists to determine the collective risk of voting third party for the states they reside in. Even Jacobin failed to trust twice.
  Things are pretty fucked. Electoral means are slow. I tend to advocate for boycott, strike, and riot (encompassing a wide scope of wisely breaking laws).
  
  I suppose that is a tangible way to affect change under the existing electoral system, so more power to you. I guess, with that in mind, you need to vote third party on an occasion when third party will actually get that 5% threshold, which as you say takes trust.
  
  need to vote third party on an occasion when third party will actually get that 5% threshold
  non sequitur
  You weren't really very open to ideas. And, you were the best of the bunch in this thread.
  
  That's needlessly dismissive, I was repeating my understanding of what you'd said
  
  I'm sorry you feel that way. Try something different next time.
  
  You really had no interest in engaging with me did you? Because I basically fully agreed with you in my previous comment and you said I wasn't open to ideas.
  
  You failed to be adequate in either reading comprehension or presentation.
  
  Ad hominem
  
  OK. I'll assign more benefit of the doubt.
  To be moral and ethical in their voting choice, to serve systemic design intent, to serve the practicalities of implementation, an individual need not care about others' votes.
  So, it's incorrect to set as a prerequisite a belief in success of a 5% goal to vote for it. Presenting as you did exemplifies the propaganda-fed ego of the neoliberal. The meaning in voting is not to make you feel good about yourself for choosing the bandwagon that wins. All should vote for whom best represents them with reckless disregard for the short-term outcome.
  The eventual counterargument to what I'm saying is rooted in utilitarianism: Democracy produces at best mediocre outcomes. The systemic design answer was the electoral college.
- This. I'm in the US and was fully prepared to protest whether Harris or Trump won, I'm opposed to them both in different ways. Trump and team may get me off my ass very quickly though.
- All you do by consistently voting the "lesser of two evils" is kicking the hangover down the road by keeping to drink more alcohol. You know every time that it will get worse and the sooner you get through the hangover, the sooner you could actually move on, but in fear of the hangover you grab the bottler another time.
  With the measures you mentioned the problem is in particular that the current Democrats are not caring about them. They assume they will get the votes nonetheless and if they don't it is fine because the Republicans will cover most of the donors interests anyways. Making noise only works, if it is followed by consequences. Leaving political violence aside, the only consequence a normal person can realize is not giving the vote.

308 comments