I appreciate the logic behind a protest vote, and I can sympathize with the circumstances that furnish such a vote. But I believe my logic is pretty sound, acknowledges the very real problems obvious to people who may be choosing to make such a vote, and hopefully makes an alternative case based on similar experiences and human needs to perhaps vote differently. I won’t make a moral judgement against people for this, I have a fairly complicated system of ethics. I know people with high levels of political education who I often agree with, but who are advocating for protest vote, safe state strategy, and the like. All I can do is make a case that maybe people haven’t heard before. The votes will be what they are, for a maintenance of a sad ineffectual status quo that doesn’t relate to people, or for much much worse. That’s how I see it, bit I don’t believe it is right to browbeat others into seeing my views, perpetuating a situation that only benefits the Democrats. But there is a real world with real people and real consequences. If people vote different than I’d like but doing so helps them to reckon with reality as it exists and not as it presents itself to us, then that is itself a bit of a victory as well.
I don’t understand why the logic doesn’t apply both ways though. If you shouldnt vote third party in contested states, then you should in ones that aren’t. I think that would say a lot if most democrats voted third party in those situations. I could get behind it if it were applied both ways, and it would be a great way to have a third party actually get enough popular vote to make a difference.
I’m very aware of the argument behind a safe state strategy, like I said I know a lot of people capable of sophisticated political analysis who are making that decision.
What I said was that if you are planning on making a “safe state” type calculation, and advocate for such a strategy then you had better know for sure your state is safe, and the states of the people where you might advocate for that strategy are also safe. I don’t think a protest vote is much of a protest, but I also know that the uncommitted movement which had made no small impact on the electorate in bringing awareness to this unconscionable genocide inflicted on innocent people, underwritten by both political parties, uncommitted has been advocating for voting third party. I think this is a miscalculation and false equivocation, but that movement has done good work and brought people into grassroots political engagement who were not engaged before. For them, voting is a tactic, but their strategy is to raise awareness of the Palestinian genocide, in which they have been successful. There are people who are very engaged with political action who weren’t before, and they are voting with their principles.
But uncommitted is not a political party that can defend those principles. I want a workers party. And I want Trump to lose. I also don’t think the Greens are a way to get that party, regardless of their electoral strategy. Those are my priorities. If they differ from others I can understand that. But I don’t have to agree with it and I certainly aren’t required to advocate for it. All I can do is present the situation as I see it and speak truth to uncertainty. I have a fair amount of certainty even with all of the hedging I’m doing for subjective opinion and difference of priorities. We won’t know until the votes are cast and counted, and apparently once the incoming presidency has successfully transferred power against the (likely more sophisticated than 2000) attempts to subvert the results of that election.
All I can do is speak to the different factors as I understand them and present a coherent argument for action based on coherent logic. I don’t think I contradicted myself, I think I addressed your concern in my very first post. Buy if I have contradicted myself then I’m willing to explore that, as contradiction is the beginning of dialectical inquiry.
You didn’t contradict yourself, I was asking for clarification because I didn’t understand you fully.
I don’t really think we are all that far about on the substance of this, and we could probably debate the nuance for ages for no gain, so I won’t.
The main thing I think is important is that people don’t fall into the trap of thinking there is only one broad perspective that should be valid for everyone, which I don’t think you are doing.
As an aside, do you have any sources I could read about the 2000 transfer of power? I was so young then, and growing up people never posited it as a coordinated attempt to subvert the election. I have heard a bit about it in the past years but had trouble finding information on what had happened.
One connection that deeply concerned me was the involvement of a number of Oathkeepers, paramilitaries who were present for and knowingly attempted to thwart the process. Orders came directly from the leader of the concerningly large paramilitary group, and the group has many direct links to Roger Stone; a top Trump official and architect of his entire rise to political power from landlord/gameshow host.
I had meant the Bush/Gore election, but I will take these too since I’ve read conflicting reports on how Stone reacted to the riot as it was happening.
This is worth studying, I’d be interesting in comparing 2000 with 2016, as well as the ways that establishment democrats had intervened to deny Bernie Sanders the democratic nomination. I’ll see what sources I can put together and anything interesting I find out I’ll share, and if you have time to do the same I’d appreciate anything you could find. Maybe there’s time to write an article before the election, though even afterward for future elections would be worthwhile.
It sounds like there were a lot of technical issues in Florida that led votes to be cast to the wrong person, as well as votes to be discarded entirely, which led to a case before the Supreme court where they said there was a deadline that had to be meant even if it meant discarding votes.
I appreciate the logic behind a protest vote, and I can sympathize with the circumstances that furnish such a vote. But I believe my logic is pretty sound, acknowledges the very real problems obvious to people who may be choosing to make such a vote, and hopefully makes an alternative case based on similar experiences and human needs to perhaps vote differently. I won’t make a moral judgement against people for this, I have a fairly complicated system of ethics. I know people with high levels of political education who I often agree with, but who are advocating for protest vote, safe state strategy, and the like. All I can do is make a case that maybe people haven’t heard before. The votes will be what they are, for a maintenance of a sad ineffectual status quo that doesn’t relate to people, or for much much worse. That’s how I see it, bit I don’t believe it is right to browbeat others into seeing my views, perpetuating a situation that only benefits the Democrats. But there is a real world with real people and real consequences. If people vote different than I’d like but doing so helps them to reckon with reality as it exists and not as it presents itself to us, then that is itself a bit of a victory as well.
I don’t understand why the logic doesn’t apply both ways though. If you shouldnt vote third party in contested states, then you should in ones that aren’t. I think that would say a lot if most democrats voted third party in those situations. I could get behind it if it were applied both ways, and it would be a great way to have a third party actually get enough popular vote to make a difference.
I’m very aware of the argument behind a safe state strategy, like I said I know a lot of people capable of sophisticated political analysis who are making that decision.
What I said was that if you are planning on making a “safe state” type calculation, and advocate for such a strategy then you had better know for sure your state is safe, and the states of the people where you might advocate for that strategy are also safe. I don’t think a protest vote is much of a protest, but I also know that the uncommitted movement which had made no small impact on the electorate in bringing awareness to this unconscionable genocide inflicted on innocent people, underwritten by both political parties, uncommitted has been advocating for voting third party. I think this is a miscalculation and false equivocation, but that movement has done good work and brought people into grassroots political engagement who were not engaged before. For them, voting is a tactic, but their strategy is to raise awareness of the Palestinian genocide, in which they have been successful. There are people who are very engaged with political action who weren’t before, and they are voting with their principles.
But uncommitted is not a political party that can defend those principles. I want a workers party. And I want Trump to lose. I also don’t think the Greens are a way to get that party, regardless of their electoral strategy. Those are my priorities. If they differ from others I can understand that. But I don’t have to agree with it and I certainly aren’t required to advocate for it. All I can do is present the situation as I see it and speak truth to uncertainty. I have a fair amount of certainty even with all of the hedging I’m doing for subjective opinion and difference of priorities. We won’t know until the votes are cast and counted, and apparently once the incoming presidency has successfully transferred power against the (likely more sophisticated than 2000) attempts to subvert the results of that election.
All I can do is speak to the different factors as I understand them and present a coherent argument for action based on coherent logic. I don’t think I contradicted myself, I think I addressed your concern in my very first post. Buy if I have contradicted myself then I’m willing to explore that, as contradiction is the beginning of dialectical inquiry.
You didn’t contradict yourself, I was asking for clarification because I didn’t understand you fully.
I don’t really think we are all that far about on the substance of this, and we could probably debate the nuance for ages for no gain, so I won’t.
The main thing I think is important is that people don’t fall into the trap of thinking there is only one broad perspective that should be valid for everyone, which I don’t think you are doing.
As an aside, do you have any sources I could read about the 2000 transfer of power? I was so young then, and growing up people never posited it as a coordinated attempt to subvert the election. I have heard a bit about it in the past years but had trouble finding information on what had happened.
One connection that deeply concerned me was the involvement of a number of Oathkeepers, paramilitaries who were present for and knowingly attempted to thwart the process. Orders came directly from the leader of the concerningly large paramilitary group, and the group has many direct links to Roger Stone; a top Trump official and architect of his entire rise to political power from landlord/gameshow host.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/four-members-oath-keepers-sentenced-roles-jan-6-capitol-breach
Archive link to paywalled nyt article https://archive.is/LeGLk
I had meant the Bush/Gore election, but I will take these too since I’ve read conflicting reports on how Stone reacted to the riot as it was happening.
This is worth studying, I’d be interesting in comparing 2000 with 2016, as well as the ways that establishment democrats had intervened to deny Bernie Sanders the democratic nomination. I’ll see what sources I can put together and anything interesting I find out I’ll share, and if you have time to do the same I’d appreciate anything you could find. Maybe there’s time to write an article before the election, though even afterward for future elections would be worthwhile.
This one has quite a few details on the 2000 election and contributing factors I had not known about: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/rigged-vote-four-us-presidential-elections-contested-results-180961033/
It sounds like there were a lot of technical issues in Florida that led votes to be cast to the wrong person, as well as votes to be discarded entirely, which led to a case before the Supreme court where they said there was a deadline that had to be meant even if it meant discarding votes.
That does still leave the question of why the Supreme Court decided this way which led me to: https://www.britannica.com/event/Bush-v-Gore
And then there is this paper written by a university teacher, Miguel Martinez-Saenz: https://cah.ucf.edu/fpr/article/the-2000-presidential-election-a-matter-of-opinions/