• yamanii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    yeah, didn’t work in brazil, we just opened up for the right to elect their dumbass just before the pandemic started, it was grim, please do vote for the lesser evil.

    • Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      113
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s not a counterpoint, that’s just pointing out that both aren’t good signals. The main difference is that not voting or voting third party makes it more likely that the guy you yourself admit you’re more scared of more likely to win.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s not how democracy works, like at all

      Democracy is about compromise. By definition. Not about demanding exactly what you want and sabotaging the system if you don’t get it. That’s the opposite of democracy.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Then you get full fascism

          When 40% of the voting population wants fascism those are your options.

          • wildcherry@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            9 months ago

            If 40% of the voting population wants fascism your democracy is fucked and its time to re-open gulags.

            • TheFriar@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              19
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              “Don’t like fascism? Lock up your political enemies. Problem solved.”

              The answer isn’t even voting. Voting is actually important in this scenario because, yes, you are actually voting to keep fascists from the door.

              The actual answer isn’t electoralism at all—even if it’s important to avert the worst case scenario.

              The answer is withholding what’s most valuable to them: your labor. General strike with a clearly defined goal and a pissed off populace is literally the most powerful tool we can harness.

              • wildcherry@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Liberals will get people killed before you could organize a general strike. Quit being naive.

                • TheFriar@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  lol love it. Every single time without fail, people will find an excuse for why iT WoULd jUsT nEVeR wOrK HErE!

                  Although I will admit I haven’t heard this one before. Kudos for being original I guess?

              • wildcherry@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Fascism isn’t the opposite of voting. Words have meaning. Open an history book once in a while.

              • wildcherry@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Ah yes, the horseshoe theory. Hitler came in power because liberals sided with him instead of the communists. Exactly like the current American democratic party would rather side with fascists than mere socialism. They proved it time and time again. Libs and fascists are too face of the same coin lol

      • daltotron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        You know I kind of question that. I think democracy is more about rich people controlling the mechanisms through which everyone votes in order to sort of fool the masses into believing that whatever the oligarchs decide they want, is what they must’ve wanted, while simultaneously also being a good way for the rich to kind of gauge public interests through a periodic census and more easily manipulate them.

        No, but I kid. Mostly. I think, democracy, more, in it’s pure forms, is less maybe about compromise, and more about a kind of assumption that the majority of people are reasonable, and can be reasoned with, which I think is kind of a foundational assumption you need to make if you want any non-authoritarian form of society. Which isn’t to really say that democracy can’t be authoritarian, or employ authoritarian methods, because it can.

        Most people don’t believe we should get rid of all guns, or that we should be able to freely own machine guns, or even lots of regular guns. A functioning democracy would end up having some level of background checks, and mental health checks, and general procedures that you would have to go through (probably involving hands-on training classes and certifications), in order to own a gun. If you poll people, with a good poll, rather than a stupid binary dynamic single choice poll, you’ll find that’s what most people want. From what I’ve seen, the same is true for abortion, and I haven’t seen the public sentiment on drugs, but I’d imagine most people probably would like most hard drugs to remain more illegal, or harder to access, than most “soft drugs”. You can find this across most different things you’d poll people on. Healthcare, other forms of public infrastructure, including civic infrastructure, military funding, space research, every aspect of government.

        This isn’t to necessarily say that most people are moderates, but I think a very underrated aspect of democracy is the fact that people can choose not to vote if they feel like they’re not informed enough on a concept, which will naturally select, if done correctly, for people who are more knowledgeable on a subject. Even the general public is capable of giving you a somewhat nuanced answer on many different political topics, that kind of breaks through two-party dynamics, and might even break through what are thought to be general consistent ideological positions.

        None of this is to say that democracy isn’t also about some level of compromise, but I think it’s also up to the reasonable participants of a democracy to decide their level of compromise, what they’re willing to accept and what they’re not okay with. I think, you know, if your democracy was more on the side of my initial, joking answer, than on the side of all of what I’ve laid out, it would be kind of a shame were the whole system NOT sabotaged and taken down. In my view, at least. And, you know, providing something worse didn’t sprout up in it’s place.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think it’s pretty much a given that something worse would sprout up in its place.

          But I do agree that an educated voting base is critical to functioning democracy. That’s why I think the long term solution to our current fascism problem is education, a front we’re failing miserably on

      • Clubbing4198@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Western democracy originated in ancient Greece. This political system granted democratic citizenship to free men, while excluding slaves, foreigners and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, this was what democracy meant. An elite class of free men made all the decisions for everyone. Before Athens adopted democracy, aristocrats ruled society, so “rule by the people”, or the idea of a government controlled (in theory) by all its (free) male citizens instead of a few wealthy families seemed like a good deal. But really it was just a new iteration of Aristocracy rule rather than the revolution it’s painted as. The rich still rule society by feeding voters carefully constructed propaganda and keeping everyone poor, overworked and desperate to be granted basic needs by the state.

        In democracies today, only legal citizens of a country are granted democracy. In a lot of countries, people who have been convicted of a “crime” are denied the right to vote, regardless of how long ago they served their sentence. In the US, this is used to deny voting rights to minority groups, who make up a large proportion of the prison population.

        In some societies only a small minority group are allowed to participate in the democracy. In Apartheid South Africa, the minority group (European settlers) granted themselves democracy and excluded the native majority, using democracy to deprive the native population of the rights granted to European settlers. Anarchy, of course, is an absence of government; of rulers. Democracy aims for the individual to be governed, ruled, controlled by others.

        Our rulers use democracy to separate us into in-groups and out-groups, pitting the majority group against the minority groups and giving everyone a false sense of control. We’re made to believe we have a say in how our lives are run because we get to participate in glorious democracy. Of course, all of us outside the ruling class continue to be exploited, living in perpetual servitude, and the only people who really benefit from democracy are the ruling class who use it to keep us alienated and distracted so we don’t rise up and kill them all for the debilitating misery they create.

        Democracy grants authority to favored groups to oppress minority groups. Democracy ignores the autonomy of the individual in favor of the collective will of the dominant group. Democracy exists to enable rulers to uphold brutal power hierarchies. It’s really the full embodiment of authority; used to maintain the tyrannical capitalist-statist status quo all over the world today.

          • Clubbing4198@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, however you try to window-dress it. In practice, all forms of democracy have been used by a majority group to control or otherwise dictate to a minority group. All forms of democracy have been used to smother autonomy, to stifle self-determination, and to absolve rulers of responsibility for their actions. How can a ruler be responsible for their atrocities when “the people” elected them and empowered them to commit those atrocities?

            Instead of a large group laboring to make democracy work so they can agree on a course of action, it would be far more productive for smaller groups made up of people with shared interests to splinter off and co-operate to follow their own plans that require no compromise because their interests are already aligned.

      • Clubbing4198@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        yes we made a bunch of noise about the failures of the democrats in an effort to pressure them to fucking do something. whether you think we are stupid for refusing to vote or not, you can’t deny how much discourse there is and how much engagement has occurred.

        • jumjummy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          Refusing to vote in the general election is actually beyond stupid. None of your arguments will have any merit, and when Trump wins, you can buy some golden shoes to commemorate sticking it to the DNC.

          • Clubbing4198@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            Voting for someone that does not represent you because you are more scared of the other guy is indistinguishable, as a signal, from someone that fully supports them. By voting against your own interests you are actively undermining the democratic process.

            • jumjummy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              See that’s where your argument makes no sense. Unless you want Trump to win, not voting is in effect “against your own interests”. Undermining the democratic process is what Trump WILL DO if he is elected.

              This is the reality of our election process, like it or not.

    • Gabe Bell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      Counter-counter-point : democracy, as a system of government, is pointless because whether you vote, you don’t vote, you protest vote, you vote tactically or you just set your ballot paper on fire it’s not going to make a difference – you still get shafted by corrupt fuckers.

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

        “Voting is pointless because they’re all corrupt fuckers” sure, tell that to the gay people who now have rights because of Democrats, or the trans people who do not have rights because of Republicans. Dumbass

        • jumjummy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          This is where all the “Genocide Joe” folks’ arguments fall apart completely. It shows how incredibly misguided they are. There is literally no scenario where Trump is better than Biden.

        • Gabe Bell@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Should I also tell that to all the people who voted Democrat and lost their right to abortion because every Democrat failed to pass a Federal abortion law in forty years because it didn’t serve their own interests to do so?

          Should I also tell that to all the people who voted Democrat and might lose their right to same-sex marriage because every Democrat as so far failed to pass a federal same-sex marriage law because it didn’t serve their own interests to do so?

          Do you want me to carry on about how corrupt the Democrats are? About how – when it comes down to it – they failed the people just as badly as the Republicans have?

          Besides, I live in the UK and frankly don’t give a shit about the clusterfuck that the American clownshow of politics is. We have our own problems.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            Besides, I live in the UK and frankly don’t give a shit about the clusterfuck that the American clownshow of politics is.

            Then why in the flying fuck are you out here giving opinions on something you don’t know about and don’t care about?

            • Gabe Bell@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Hold on – you think we don’t vote in the UK? We don’t have democracy in the UK?

              Where does the original image mention the USA?

              Where do I mention the USA – aside from this post where do I mention the USA?

              Every time I have referred to voting I have been talking about elections in the UK.

              Fucks’ sake – the entire world doesn’t revolve around your pitiful excuse for a democracy. And given what I’ve read here, most of your country doesn’t give a shit about your pitiful excuse for democracy.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                the entire world doesn’t revolve around your pitiful excuse for a democracy

                No, but this post does.

                • Gabe Bell@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Where does it say that, exactly?

                  Point out for me where this image mentions America, American democracy, the American election or anything else about your country?

                  I’ll wait.

          • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            I agree with you in boiling it down to: Democrats have failed the people because they haven’t done enough good things, while Republicans have failed the people by actively doing terrible things.

            So my conclusion is that yes, both parties have done terrible things, and I agree that Democrats haven’t gone far enough on most issues I care about, but the GOP is actively going against the things I care about.

            It’s an easy decision at the ballot box, and it is an easy decision for me to do more than simply vote. Voting is the lowest bar for participation in a democracy.

    • I_Clean_Here@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Democracy requires participation to be legitimized by the people.

      But sure, don’t vote and have the fascists take away those annoying voting rights. Like an idiot.

        • Gabe Bell@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          How?

          Who do you think is going to read your blank ballot?

          My constituency has 250,000+ people in it.

          Do you REALLY think that someone is going to sift through over two hundred and fifty THOUSAND ballots, find one that has “abstain” on it and go “oh – we must find this person and find out why they are upset with the process”?

          Also – not to put too fine a point on it – voting is supposed to be anonymous. If I write “abstain” on my ballot and they track me down, isn’t that FAR more worrying?

  • SuspiciousUser@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    My voting strategy is super easy. You don’t need to keep up with politics or policy. Just see who the KKK is voting for and then vote for the other guy.

          • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            9 months ago

            I’m convinced that the CIA is somehow causing the American left to be unable to organize, because with organization comes power, and the left having power would mean a shift away from corporate rule.

            • Blackmist@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              9 months ago

              Closest they seemed to get was the Black Panthers. So it was the FBI rather than the CIA that busted that in.

            • wildcherry@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              The CIA killed socialist politician in my country.

              And I’m not some banana south-american dictature, I’m in western europe.

            • hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Like by infiltrating, arresting, and executing them? It’s the FBI. You know about COINTELPRO, right? There are tons of FBI documents talking about how they did exactly that. Or like… The drug war?

              This shit is recent and still going on. I have a friend who’s an organizer. The FBI comes and knocks on his door every April just to tell him they’re watching him. This happens to every visible organizer in the Seattle area. I mean, fucking Durkan and Robert Child’s.

              The US apparatus of state violence primarily targets the left. We live under a continuous counterinsurgency program and it’s mostly targeted and keeping the left from organizing. Go read Life During Wartime and watch Trouble episode 6.

              There’s huge and well documented paper trail. The CIA prevents democracy aborad, the FBI prevents it at home.

    • CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      You can hate the concept of government in it’s entirety and still vote. Even Lysander Spooner, a total anarchist, said as much in his writings. He said government is completely illegitimate, but there’s nothing wrong with voting when you are forced into the system, and doing so does not imply your consent to the system. It’s like a torturer asking you how you’d prefer to be tortured. It’s OK to have an opinion. Over here in the USA, I’d rather suffer Sleepy Genocidal Joe than that fucking orange monster. Since we don’t have ranked choice voting, I have to pick one or else I don’t get any say at all, and that’s exactly how the powers-that-be want it.

      • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yep. Do you want a festering carbuncle on your ass or do you want AIDS, Ebola, leprosy and testicle cancer combined? Shitty choice but an easy one nonetheless.

      • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        I cannot because I’m (fortunately) not a US citizen. If you are and you don’t vote, it’s a vote for Trump. If you want Trump to win because you think things will somehow get better after he brings down the system, you’re delusional.

        • wildcherry@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s not specific to the US. It’s a matter of having a tiny bit of political culture. Liberals and fascists needs each other. The first needs the last as a scapegoat and the later feeds off poverty and frustration created by neoliberal corporatism. So no I won’t be blackmailed into voting for white-wingers. People voting for fascists are the only responsible for fascism.

  • meep_launcher@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    CGP Grey’s Rules for Rulers spells out power structures in authoritarian and democratic countries really well.

    If you vote, you are saying “I can support you, or I can support the other guy, but I will support someone” whereas not voting tells politicians you are politically useless, so they won’t pay any attention to your needs.

    It’s a cynical way of looking at it, but if the no. 1 imperative for a politician is reelection, spending time doing things that will get you more votes is better than wasting time pleasing people who probably won’t vote anyway.

  • Erika2rsis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Honestly sometimes I think every country should have its own Sinn Féin of sorts. Just a party that never takes its seats. Yeah, try calling it the “same thing” when you can’t pass any legislation or form coalitions or get anything done because a third of the seats in the national legislature are literally left empty on purpose. Don’t like it? Well, it’s your problem that your party is literally less electable than No Representation!

    • Tinidril
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      In the US that would almost literally be voting in Republicans. They want the system to crawl to a halt, and critical functions are legislated to frequently sunset so they can hold the system hostage on a regular basis.

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

          It’s how the system works with First Past the Post voting. It doesn’t support more than 2 viable candidates. We need to reform our election system.

        • Tinidril
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Well, it’s a short comment on a social media platform, what do you expect. At least it’s less superficial than “This is very superficial.”

          • Erika2rsis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            9 months ago

            I should’ve gone into detail, but I’m just not in the mood to argue sometimes. I’ll get back to you if I do.

    • delaunayisation@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Well, good news, US legislature managed to dismantle itself with all the “checks and balances” and liberum veto filibuster. Now it’s just a circus to play for the gullible to legitimize this oligarchic empire. It is no representation, one way or another and somebody should openly state it. The best the progressive caucus could do now is to walk out.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, try calling it the “same thing” when you can’t pass any legislation or form coalitions

      Isn’t that the Republican strategy?

      • Erika2rsis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s the Republican strategy when they’re in the minority and the legislation in question is stuff that actually helps people. Real POSIWID hours

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    9 months ago

    If somebody tells you not to vote, they know who you would have voted for and rather you didn’t.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    9 months ago

    ITT: people shouting “nuh uh” at the post.

    I’m fairly convinced that Lemmy has been compromised with an inordinate amount of Russian propaganda relay bots.

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Lemmy’s so small I have my doubts it’s that widespread. We have a good amount of extreme left true believers here.

    • III@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I mean, why wouldn’t it be? There is nothing stopping bad faith actors from participating. The only reason they wouldn’t is if there was little value in doing so.

      • wildcherry@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        What about the people like me who are just tired of liberal astroturfing? One can hate putin and that lesser-evil bullcrap you know

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago
                           ____________
                          /____________\
                         / /  _\__/_  \ \
                         || // \\// \\ ||
                         || \\_//\\_//.||
                         |_\__/_<>_\__/_|
                            /        \
                           /  ||  ||  \
                        ///            \\\
                       //|              |\\
                       / \\   Hootbot  // \
                      |U'U|'---____---'|U'U|
                      |____________________|
                           \          /
                            |        |
                            |        | m1a
                        ____|        |____
                       |\__/|        |\__/|
                       |    /        \    |
                       |  /    TOMY    \  |
                       |/________________\|
                       |__________________|
          
    • Kentifer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Because real, reasonable people can’t disagree with this? Many people would say that this doesn’t go far enough as it doesn’t condemn third party voters for just “throwing their vote away.”

      Imagine thinking that the only people who hold a position you don’t like are Russian bots and not real people who actually believe shit.

    • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      9 months ago

      If you’re really that convinced that everyone who doesnt like genocide joe is a russian bot, then you’re far too immature to be using any website other than reddit.

      • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        You call them immature in the same sentence as literally name calling like a school bully.

      • wildcherry@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Liberals are fine with warcrime when their side is doing it. Meanwhile, under their Biden, American soldiers are setting themselves afire.

        If they get trump they will have nobody to blame but themselves.

  • jonne@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    9 months ago

    Agreed, that’s why the strategy of voting uncommitted and/or third party is superior.

    • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Except it’s a primary where he’s running against himself basically.

      That’s the point. It’s a primary, it’s not the general election. They’re showing up and saying “we’re your voters and you know what our message is.”

      • HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Oh I’m 100% behind handing in a blank or Mickey Mouse or something in the primary. What’s upsetting is the people who swear up and down they’re going to do it in the general.

        • chickenf622@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Doesn’t help that the US uses first past the post voting instead of ranked choice. You usually have to pick who you hate least, rather than who you like most.

          • HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            It does not in the slightest help, no. But it is worth noting that even here you can see differences in the parties - one of them keeps trying to strip voting rights from people, put minimal polling places into high density areas, etc.

    • Tremble@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      9 months ago

      I tell our kids to turn in an empty ballot if they don’t want to vote. To at least do that is a minimum.

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        Counts the same as not voting.

        Yeah, that’ll show em.

        • Otter@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          A little different actually

          Not voting at all can mean anything. You like them all, you hate them all, you couldn’t care, etc.

          Sending in a blank but signed vote means you cared enough to show up and that you didn’t pick anyone. Those ballots are counted. Over time, if enough of them start to pile up, the existing parties might change things up to cash in on the pile of votes sitting around. New parties may also form if there’s a clearly defined group that isn’t being represented.

          I’m not pushing for doing this in any particular election. We have users from all over the world here, voting in many different jurisdictions of elections. A blank vote can be an effective strategy in some situations

          • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            9 months ago

            In the US it’s just a non-vote. No one counts non-votes. Perhaps you live in a country where they do, but not if you’re an American.

            • Otter@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              I’m in Canada, and I think the term used here is ‘rejected ballots’ or ‘declined ballots’

              Some links:

              The first article is specifically the effect I described, where people report the number of declined ballots, interview people who chose to do that, and talk about why it might be happening. That has an impact, but the magnitude depends on how prolific it is.

              Second link quoted:

              Ballots must be rejected if they were not supplied by an election officer, were improperly marked (including those voided by the elector), were cast for a person other than a candidate, or if there is any writing or mark by which the elector could be identified.

              After the count, the election officer fills out a statement of the vote, recording the number of votes in favour of each candidate and the number of rejected ballots. In this statement, the election officer has to account for all ballots received at that poll.

              I’m not as familiar with the US. My point was a blank ballot can have a different outcome from not showing up, and it can be a valid strategy depending on where you are in the world.

            • Tremble@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              9 months ago

              You are talking out of your ass. They know who voted, what party they are affiliated with. They don’t know who voted for who.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Whilst I’m not in US with it’s Power Duopoly system, were I’ve lived I’ve always made a point of voting in the elections I can vote, and if none of the options appeals to me, I just vote blank.

    Abstention out of principle does get mixed with abstention out of laziness, out of disconnect from politics or simply because of not being able to go vote, but a blank vote is a statement of “I did go to the trouble of going to vote just to register my dissatisfaction with all available options”.

    I’ve also been on the other side (manning a voting place) and I don’t recommend spoiling your vote (if voting with a paper ballot) as whilst the people talling the votes will indeed see your beautiful artistic depiction of male genitalia or read your strongly worded message of disgust with the selection of candidates available, it won’t go beyond them as in the tally it just gets mixed with people that incorrectly filled-in the ballot (such as multiple marks, marks significantly outside the box or, in the US, hanging chads).

  • Obi@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    In France you can vote “blank” which is counted separately to absentees.

    • wildcherry@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      France is slowly descending into fascism. Every five years they have the choice between liberals and the far-right, like in the US. Voting liberals is empowering the far-right, since nazis are feeding on poverty brought by liberals.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Low turnout doesn’t change their minds it makes them think they need to either go further to the center or that Americans are too lazy

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Low turnout consistently favors republicans, that’s why they do all they can to make it harder to vote, not going out to vote is basically for the republicans, who are at this point, basically a Fascist party.

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      The Democrats go further to the center no matter what, but they only win when they run to the left. Obama ran as a radical leftist that was going to deliver universal healthcare and hold the banks accountable, but jettisoned that as quick as he could. The truth is they just want to be in the center, and they’ll justify it no matter the turnout or outcome of the election.

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Off the top of my head, he was going to bailout the mortgage holders, reign in the banks, close Gitmo, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, pass universal healthcare, and end warrantless wiretaps. He either abandoned those objectives (sometimes when he held a super-majority) or technically did something but not really (like ending the warrantless wiretap program but creating a mass surveillance program). Anyway, maybe, “radical leftist,” is a little hyperbolic, but he ran further to the left than anyone had since the 70s and he governed slightly to the left of George W.

          • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            It’s more accurate to say he made leftist promises, and then turned out to be just another conservative asshole with amazing oratory skills.

              • pjwestin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                He didn’t really do anything for gay rights either. He didn’t even support gay marriage until his second term. Gay marriage only became law because of the Supreme Court.

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Imagine the privilege of someone unable to tell the difference between casual indifference and outright hostility.

            • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Heavy sits the crown

              I think it might actually be impossible to remain a good person as a president, even if you manage to somehow be a good person who can become president (also rare)

              • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                The president definitely has to be an asshole to some extent, because it’s impossible to make everyone happy in this country.

                With that said, we’ve seen presidents do what they say they’re gonna do, even as progressives. We sat through four years of Trump using every possible resource to do the awful stuff he did, and there’s no good reason why anyone should look at Biden and expect less than that.

                Democrats deserve credit for ruling as conservatives. They reinforced the narrative that voting is pointless, at least in terms of federal elections.

                • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Expecting Biden to rule like Trump is absolutely fucking insane. He ignored or broke any rule that stood in his way, and it got many of his policy initiatives shut down by the courts until he went back and did it the proper way, with the end result being that he was so busy fighting in the courts he didn’t have time to do everything he wanted. He tried to exploit his powers to persecute his opponents and got impeached over it. He shut down the government over border wall funding and got nothing for it. The only areas he was actually successful in pushing the boundaries of acceptability were in grifting the government by staying at his properties and charging inflated prices I’m violation of the emoluments clause.

                  I’m a leftist because I believe government can be a force for good, and because I believe in the rule of law and in fighting against corruption. If Biden or any democrat acted like Trump did, I’d vote them out in a heartbeat.

        • Grass@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          By my understanding, radical left for Americans and also slightly less so but also Canadians is kinda center right for the rest of the world. I’ve also heard people start calling politicians radical when they bait and switch even though that’s not really how that word works.

            • Soggy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              “Radical” just means “outside the status quo”. “Extremist” is more the term you want there.

                • Soggy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  That is a better way of putting it, thanks. Not just outside the status quo but pushing to change it. I still think it carries a milder connotation than neo-Nazis or Anarchists and different language should be used for the fringe than just further-than-mainstream politics.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                if we’re talking extremists we’re talking our boy the unambomber, and uh, the people that bombed abortion clinics, maybe.

                I dont actually have a good second handle for extremists on the right lol. I guess hate criming nazis? That kind of shit.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        He didn’t jettison his healthcare plans, he was railroaded by an uncooperative Congress. The fact that he was able to get the ACA passed, even as neutered as it is, is nothing short of miraculous compared to the relative lack of delivery of even a single campaign promise by any president in recent history.

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          He had a huge margin in the House, a super-majority in the Senate, and he chose to pass the Heritage Foundation’s Healthcare proposal. Clinton didn’t even have that majorities like that his first term. If Obama couldn’t get that congress to cooperate he wasn’t fit to lead.

            • pjwestin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Yeah, again, he had 60 in the senate, a big majority in the house, and a huge mandate from the voters. If he couldn’t pass his legislation under those circumstances he wasn’t fit to lead.

          • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            He lost the super majority very quickly, and it was rarely an effective supermajority. Having 60 geriatric men in a room at one time is hard. Byrd was in the hospital, and frankin had been denied his seat for months. By the time the aca passed they’d lost the “super” part of the majority anyway.

      • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        What more should Obama have done on the front of universal healthcare than to draft a universal healthcare plan and try to get Congress to pass it? Which is what he did. They didn’t have the votes and the president doesn’t write laws. They got healthcare reform as far as they could with a few asshole Democrats and a totally stonewalling GOP. Also how is that platform radically leftist

  • ElderberryLow@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    If you can, please go vote. You give the vote up to the person you like the least if you don’t show up. I know this election sucks and the candidates aren’t the best. But is there someone you absolutely don’t want in office no matter what? I have one in mind and you better believe I’m showing up to vote for the only guy who can have a chance to keep him away. These other third party guys have no chance, like always. If you don’t show up to vote or vote third party as a throwaway, then don’t complain for the next four years.

    • GraniteM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      These other third party guys have no chance, like always.

      Also they aren’t serious candidates. You can tell because they just crawl out of the woodwork for presidential elections and cause problems. They don’t run for any offices further down the hierarchy and demonstrate that they have good ideas and build up public trust enough to merit their becoming president. They just go on vanity tours and fuck around the serious candidates who are willing to put in the work.

  • Clubbing4198@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    you realize this is talking about not voting in a PRIMARY, for a nomination he can’t lose, right? tlaib is not suggesting that they don’t vote in the general for biden. she is saying write uncommitted in the PRIMARY. personally I don’t think that will pressure them enough. a large number of people denying biden a vote in the general might make them get the picture though.

    • delaunayisation@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, it’s absolutely ridiculous how easily people just accepted that primaries are just a joke, that the DNC can hold them when they want to and just decide on their own when they don’t. Telling people to vote for Biden now, when he is not yet by any stretch an official candidate, is to forfeit a democratic right. They openly say they’re ready to rubber-stamp a decision of party oligarchs.

      • oatscoop
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        “People” don’t even have a basic understanding of how our elections or government works. Anyone that refuses to vote in the primaries has absolutely no right to bitch about what candidates are “picked”.

        The comments after the 2016 Democratic party primary was equally hilarious and depressing. Hearing “the election was stolen from Bernie!!!11111” from people that didn’t vote in the primary was obnoxious, and the dumb-asses expected me to agree with them. “No, you moron: he lost the primary. He lost because lazy fucks like you couldn’t take 30 minutes out of your day to go vote for him.”

        Of the dozen Sanders supporters I knew at the time 3 of us actually went out and cast a ballot for him.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          I caucused for him in 2016 and it was pretty depressing how many people wouldn’t vote for him “because he’s so far behind”. First, who gives a fuck? It’s a primary, vote for the candidate you actually want. Second, he wasn’t really behind. He was behind when including the superdelegates who have only gone against the popular vote one time in all of history. Had Bernie had the popular vote at the end of the polling period, all of the supers would have cast votes for Sanders. But you can’t explain this to people. Sure, you can tell them, but they aren’t going to actually listen, hear, and comprehend what you’re saying. All they know is they want to vote for the winning candidate, because of course primaries are a sporting event and only being on the winning team matters. I lost a lot of faith in people in 2016, and I haven’t really regained any of it since. Matter of fact, I’ve lost considerably more faith since.

          • oatscoop
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I can sort of understand their reasoning – I’m with you in that I don’t agree with it and think it’s self defeating, but I can see how they could arrive at that conclusion.

            What really killed me is how many of my friends and colleagues that hard-core loved Bernie Sanders didn’t vote because they either “forgot” to, didn’t register to vote after being slammed with reminders to, didn’t bother to look up when/where to vote, or just couldn’t be fucked to make the effort. Even after countless hours talking about how great he is, posting on social media, and even donating to his campaign.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        The DNC definitely heavily sways the outcome of the primaries. They use their superdelegates as a cudgel to fool people into thinking any other candidate has no chance of winning, then they use the media to repeatedly report how far ahead their chosen candidate is (including supers). Idk why most people are afraid to vote for someone who’s behind in the polls during a primary, but they are. Apparently the average person wants very badly to be on the winning team. I saw this first hand when I was a delegate for Sanders in 2016.

        • delaunayisation@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah, in the last primaries he was the least inspired, least charismatic candidate. He had effectively no platform beyond keeping the status quo. He wasn’t the worst candidate only because the DNC, against its own rules, gave platform to an actual Republican billionaire.

          It’s wild for me that people defend him before he even is a candidate.