Edit: new and improved image, now with 100% less support! Used my expert photo editing skills to change “supporting” to say “voting for”

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      108
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I’m going to copy /u/kiniz0r’s comment from a few months ago because I think it’s extremely perceptive and accurate:

      People have a fucked-up understanding of voting in the US. You are not voting for the person you agree with. You are voting for the person you’d rather negotiate with.

      If you actually care beyond the aesthetics of whether you did the cool thing or not, you have to think about the function of what you’re doing and not just whether it feels good.

      original comment

      Your political choices shouldn’t be performative, they should be as effective as possible in the present.

      You do the best you can with what you have.

      • David_Eight@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        61
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        My favorite analogy is that voting is like taking the bus, just because it doesn’t drop you off in front of your house, doesn’t mean you’re better off walking.

      • archomrade [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Idk why people think negotiation starts after voting happens

        We’re negotiating right now, this is the negotiation.

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Absolutely, but the negotiation also continues after the voting happens, so it’s probably worthwhile to vote for someone who can be negotiated with.

          • archomrade [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            Not If your negotiation partner is unwilling to provide concessions before you give them what they want…

        • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          No no, see the best time to negotiate is after you’ve already given someone everything they want from you. This totally isn’t a textbook recipe for being taken advantage of. /s

      • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’ve talked to a bunch of people who were barely of voting age in 2016 and who treated their first voting experience as an edgy popularity contest, who didn’t think about anything other than the presidential race.

        Then Roe was overturned and they were like ‘Ohhh. I get it now.’ And then it was too late.

        I also hear from people who are just coming into voting age saying similar things. Biden isn’t doing enough about Isreal (as if he has the power to unilaterally stop the fighting), and they seem completely unaware that Congress, not the president, controls most things. This is not (yet) a dictatorship.

        But they’re planning to vote like it’s a horse race. Sorry Buttercup, but that’s not how this works. Biden is at least sane. The entire right is not. Please for the love of humanity, please don’t lock us into fascism because you think Biden is too old or whatever. I agree, we should have better candidates – nobody seems to be mentioning that trump is only 3 years younger than Biden, which at their age is nothing – the fact is these are the two we will be choosing from. There is no third option in this system, and no amount of protest votes will change that. It’s just a fact.

        I would vote for Biden’s corpse before trump and the fascism he openly calls for. If you wouldn’t, you need to learn more about this system and processes before casting your vote. It shouldn’t even be a question.

      • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        A most poignant and apt critique.

        I have observed that a lot of us treat the enormous good luck of democratic participation as a team sport, and it’s depressing.

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Oh yes, well another commenter already put out the recommendation for ranked choice voting which would be a great improvement over our current first-past-the-post system.

          I’m really not sure how we even start getting such a change implemented though.

    • MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s the nice thing about the two political party system: Who else are you going to vote for? Abstain or third party? You’d run the risk of having democracy end, when the other party wins, and getting thrown into a camp for your “Unamerican” beliefs.

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      9 months ago

      You understand the president you vote for is only part of this right? We could elect Bernie and we still wouldn’t have healthcare in 4 years without a blue congress.

      What is Biden supposed to have done in the last 4 years about healthcare on his own? The changes on requirements for prior authorizations is a big help for many but things like that are about as much as he can do without Congress.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        You understand the president you vote for is only part of this right?

        I’ll point you to Henry Cuellar down in the Texas Valley. He’s one of the most consistently right-wing Democrats in the House, he’s in a Safe Dem seat and has been since the district was packed with Dem voters during the 2006 Tom DeLay lead redistricting ratfuck, and every time a progressive primary opponent sticks a head up he gets millions of dollars in party to support to bail him out.

        This is the fundamental struggle with “You just have to support Biden and then figure shit out downstream”. Guys like Biden and Clinton and even Kerry and Gore have created this perpetual undercurrent of conservativism in the party, such that every election becomes a “Bad Democrat v Worse Republican” all up and down the ballot election after election after election.

        And because they can command these enormous sums of money and vast media influence campaigns from their position as leaders of the party, we keep getting these turds jammed up in our plumbing for decades - Manchins and Sinemas and Feinsteins and Gillibrands - who actively undermine everything in the official party platform with their concern trolling.

        Even if Biden wins, another four years of a glorified insurance lobbyist who gave Strom Thurmond’s fucking eulogy is not going to benefit anyone young, colored, or queer who still cling to faith in the party. He and his team are going to keep putting up these turds like Merrick Garland and Anthony Blinken in the bureaucracy and backing a team of mummies for the next Congressional election and doing everything they can to kneecap anyone under 40 with the gall to challenge someone in a primary.