So let me get this straight. You don't vote at all because none of the parties are 100% absolutely perfectly aligned to your specific views? That seems...problematic. You are letting "perfect" be...
So let me get this straight. You don't vote at all because none of the parties are 100% absolutely perfectly aligned to your specific views? That seems...problematic. You are letting "perfect" be the enemy of "progress."
If we don't keep things trending leftwards, they get dragged back right. You aren't going to get a 100% perfect leftist option because there isn't enough of a voter base for that to appeal to. We must move in steps. How do you walk 1000 miles? 1 step at a time. We aren't going to go from where we are now to 100% leftist in a single step. It just won't happen.
I think it's easier to view this through the lens of who they won't vote for, rather than who their ideal candidate is. I think it's also an important question to ask yourself, too. At what point...
I think it's easier to view this through the lens of who they won't vote for, rather than who their ideal candidate is. I think it's also an important question to ask yourself, too. At what point would you stop voting for the "lesser of two evils?" Would you vote for Liz Cheney if she were the nominee? Would you vote for Dick Cheney? Everybody has (or should have) their line that they won't cross. OP spoke vaguely, but a lot of people on "the left" have different lines.
I have never in my life not voted. I vote in every election that I am eligible. At every level. Municipal, provincial (I'm Canadian), and federal. I will never not vote because in my opinion, not...
I have never in my life not voted. I vote in every election that I am eligible. At every level. Municipal, provincial (I'm Canadian), and federal. I will never not vote because in my opinion, not voting is tantamount to accepting what everyone else wants and not having a voice of my own. Even if that means plugging my nose and voting for the "lesser of two evils" because if I don't help vote for the less evil one, then the greater evil is more likely to win. In my opinion every single vote matters.
My province just had an election. My province is also very right-ward leaning (and I am not). Despite feeling like there was no hope, I went out and voted anyway. Some areas here had candidates that won by only around 100 votes. Every. Vote. Matters.
OP can choose not to cross whatever line they see fit, and not vote, and that's fine if that's their choice. I just fail to see how that helps anyone's cause.
If I'm hearing a Saskatchewanite speaking, I feel ya. I'm one province west and you're well aware of the croney crew we have running things here. That said, your NDP did very well last election...
If I'm hearing a Saskatchewanite speaking, I feel ya. I'm one province west and you're well aware of the croney crew we have running things here.
That said, your NDP did very well last election and I'm confident that ours will come out ahead in key battlegrounds with a new leader at the helm.
With the help of social media, the right is having its moment right now. Pragmatic lefty/centrist will return, now's just not the time.
I think I would always vote for the lesser of two evils, unless I felt ready to participate in a revolution that would accomplish more than just getting people killed. Unless there's a revolution,...
I think I would always vote for the lesser of two evils, unless I felt ready to participate in a revolution that would accomplish more than just getting people killed. Unless there's a revolution, one candidate is going to get their way. Why would I ever not vote for the least bad one, no matter how bad it is? If I don't, I'm risking the worse outcome. Accelerationists make more sense to me than principled non-voters.
I read it, and I'm not trying to be dismissive, I'm just not sure what the point of this post is? It's an explanation for how you feel about voting, or not voting as you choose, and I get that,...
I read it, and I'm not trying to be dismissive, I'm just not sure what the point of this post is? It's an explanation for how you feel about voting, or not voting as you choose, and I get that, political systems in a lot of countries sucks hard. The parties are wishy-washy liars who are out to exploit us all. I guess I'm just struggling to find a topic of discussion here? Or did you just want to rant?
Yes, I understand. But OP themselves admitted to being a super-niche far-left voter and goes on to explain how when they choose not to vote it's because they feel like the politicians didn't...
Yes, I understand. But OP themselves admitted to being a super-niche far-left voter and goes on to explain how when they choose not to vote it's because they feel like the politicians didn't address their specific niche, far-left specifically. It just felt like OP is saying "I'm niche and I know it, but I'm still not being addressed" and being surprised pikachu over it. I don't really know what to say about that?
I get that, I'm a left-leaning person in a very right-wing province of Canada. I totally feel the "not being heard" but I will never ever not vote. I even asked in one of my replies if this was...
I get that, I'm a left-leaning person in a very right-wing province of Canada. I totally feel the "not being heard" but I will never ever not vote. I even asked in one of my replies if this was maybe just a rant? Because I feel that. I hate feeling like my side isn't heard. But I'm not making huge posts online about it, I go out and vote for the other side in the hopes of showing the right that the left is still here and still won't vote for them.
Okay I tried reading your post and it's pretty confusing. You seem to be typing "you" when you mean "I" and "I" when you mean "you". You also write things such as "If you want people to vote for...
Okay I tried reading your post and it's pretty confusing. You seem to be typing "you" when you mean "I" and "I" when you mean "you".
You also write things such as "If you want people to vote for you, you have to take them and what they want seriously".
This should be written as "If they want me to vote for them, they have to take me/us and what I/we want seriously."
You write in a conversational style, which is fine for discussions, but for people reading it (especially in longform) or if English is not their native language it can become a bit jumbled.
After reading your post my takeaway was similar to the above's. It may not be your intention, but that was how I read it as well.
So taking your response to the above to heart, You do not wish to be labeled and being put in a box feels dismissive. That's fair.
Politics in America is zero-sum. It's unfair that nuance and issues can't be more finely distributed but unfortunately if the bitterness of being put into the box during the political season causes you so much distress you decide to stay home you are actively taking part in making the problems you experience worse.
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people in the democratic leadership floundering trying to understand why 15 million people stayed home and your frustrations are valid. If that was the end-goal of staying home in order to force leadership to change then it's possible that this is what occurs.
The common opinion is that the pain of the next four years is not worth the lesson that the die-hards wished to deal out.
Every progressive program and improvement that has been made for our country has been done so via compromise. I'm sorry you felt you weren't being spoken to. We'll see how the country fairs for the next four years and if it was worth it.
Precisely this. Silence does not send a message when it comes to politics. Silence is agreement or apathy. None of what OP typed above is being magically conveyed to politicians when you don't...
Precisely this. Silence does not send a message when it comes to politics. Silence is agreement or apathy. None of what OP typed above is being magically conveyed to politicians when you don't vote.
Only those who are loud send messages. Protests, voting in large numbers, etc. If you want to be heard, be LOUD. Not voting is not loud. Not voting is silent acceptance.
It feels like you are trying not to understand, and also being unkind in your tone. What OP typed above is being conveyed to politicians precisely through not voting for them. You can be sure that...
It feels like you are trying not to understand, and also being unkind in your tone. What OP typed above is being conveyed to politicians precisely through not voting for them. You can be sure that 20 million fewer voters communicated a message. In case you are not aware, it was also communicated all year long through very regular massive protests and disruptions. And during the primaries. Being loud failed, and for many resulted in also being beaten and arrested.
It's honestly so rude to come at somebody like that when they are legitimately trying to both process how they are feeling in a public forum, and also explain it thoughtfully. "Not trying to be dismissive" but also "Struggling to find a topic of discussion here", be honest with yourself. You just want to shut the conversation down because you're annoyed. Which is super effective at alienating people and making them feel isolated. Which is what this post is about.
Given that Harris's campaign ignored advice to try and appeal to/fire up liberals rather than court Republicans, I think we're already there. They're already far enough right that they're...
Given that Harris's campaign ignored advice to try and appeal to/fire up liberals rather than court Republicans, I think we're already there. They're already far enough right that they're alienating liberals (not just too-principled leftists) and they're predictably failing to win conservatives over because Republicans are doing a much better job courting people this far to the right. Eventually Dems will have to learn that going further right isn't working or they're going to keep losing elections. If you're running a campaign, you need to be capable of assessing what moves will alienate parts of your base. Leftists for not voting for someone who brought Dick Cheney up on stage to endorse her is extremely expected.
I doubt this will happen unless we see a real change in party leadership with the new guard being much more progressive and willing to go after big business and support labor. Of course, in...
Eventually Dems will have to learn that going further right isn't working or they're going to keep losing elections.
I doubt this will happen unless we see a real change in party leadership with the new guard being much more progressive and willing to go after big business and support labor. Of course, in elections run by money – you can't run effectively if you can't campaign like the other candidate, which is expensive. The high costs of campaigns is a feature, not a bug, for the interests of big business and capitalism in general.
You've got a couple of real progressives, maaaybe leftists, like Bernie and AOC, but of course they sandbagged Bernie in the primaries. AOC came out of nowhere, and I think the establishment Dems have gotten a better lock on the primaries to keep that from happening more.
The rest, speaking broadly, are simply too friendly to business. The podcast Unfucking the Republic made a pretty compelling case that Obama was the most successful Republican president ever. Even the ACA was a Republican blueprint.
I think the real problem is that by enshrining a two party system, we've encoded capitalist and militarist ideals as a default option regardless of party. I'm starting to realize that left vs right is a smoke screen in terms of class, and that if we want to do something about the ultrawealthy running this country, we need something completely different.
They last paragraph above is why @daywalker 's words speak to my own yearning and frustration so well.
The fact that the Democrats just had a President who enacted the most progressive policy platform since LBJ and you people are still saying this shit is exhibit A for why Democrats will move...
The fact that the Democrats just had a President who enacted the most progressive policy platform since LBJ and you people are still saying this shit is exhibit A for why Democrats will move “right” (in your mind) and will be electorally correct to do so.
Tildes is a place for high quality discussion. Your words are rude and combative. I treat people here like they are reasonable people with reasonably held views. I hold empathy for different...
you people are still saying this shit
Tildes is a place for high quality discussion. Your words are rude and combative. I treat people here like they are reasonable people with reasonably held views. I hold empathy for different viewpoints. I expect others to do likewise.
If you would like to engage with my ideas, by all means. But please don't attack me because you don't like what I said.
I don’t think repeating fact-agnostic talking points ad nauseum constitutes “high quality discussion” regardless of tone. Asserting “Democrats have moved right” is false. Full stop.
I don’t think repeating fact-agnostic talking points ad nauseum constitutes “high quality discussion” regardless of tone. Asserting “Democrats have moved right” is false. Full stop.
I've seen people on this very site argue that we should stop trying to protect trans people and other marginalized groups in order to court votes, so you're not that far off.
I've seen people on this very site argue that we should stop trying to protect trans people and other marginalized groups in order to court votes, so you're not that far off.
In the UK what OP is talking about is conveyed to politicians by spoiling your ballot when voting. I don't know whether the same mechanism exists in other countries, but here at least not showing...
In the UK what OP is talking about is conveyed to politicians by spoiling your ballot when voting. I don't know whether the same mechanism exists in other countries, but here at least not showing up to be counted is indeed silent acceptance of the status quo.
I don't think it really does. It'll vary by state, if anything. Maryland, for instance, does not report a total number of ballots received, just the number of votes tallied in each race. If the...
I don't think it really does. It'll vary by state, if anything. Maryland, for instance, does not report a total number of ballots received, just the number of votes tallied in each race. If the total votes tallied in one race exceeds the total votes tallied in another, you can be sure that some people chose not to vote in one of them. You can also vote Write-In and usually be lumped with "Other Write-Ins" which can be construed as a protest vote, but doesn't explicitly mean that. There is no statistic that says "I showed up and dropped a blank ballot in the box because fuck all of you people".
I think silent acceptance is a judgment you're inserting yourself, there hasn't been anything silent about the protests and activism. We have actually been very very loud. We were shown we would...
I think silent acceptance is a judgment you're inserting yourself, there hasn't been anything silent about the protests and activism. We have actually been very very loud. We were shown we would not be considered, and our actions would be made prosecutable despite the constitutional right to protest, and that the police are allowed to beat people up without consequence. The message was fall in line, vote for us anyway, because at least we aren't that guy, and if you don't stop we'll hurt you. We showed up to the primaries, we showed up to every rally, and have been screaming at them for a year.
What else would you call it? There's a safe, known, low-effort protest option left on the table, but instead you decide not to keep voicing your opinion. That sounds an awful lot like silently...
What else would you call it? There's a safe, known, low-effort protest option left on the table, but instead you decide not to keep voicing your opinion. That sounds an awful lot like silently accepting defeat to me.
Edit: for clarity, in the above the "you" in "instead you decide not to keep voicing your opinion" was intended as a hypothetical-you, not specifically Melvincible, and I'm sorry if I came across as unnecessarily aggressive.
So the status quo we're talking about, that we want to change. We voiced to the candidates for an entire year, through every available channel, what we would not vote for. How is that silent?...
So the status quo we're talking about, that we want to change. We voiced to the candidates for an entire year, through every available channel, what we would not vote for. How is that silent? There was nothing on the ballot EXCEPT status quo. How would voting have made sense in that context?
For the record, I did spoil my ballot I just didn't know that had a term, I thought it was the same as not voting. The election being over does not mean any of us are going to stop voicing our opinion, the work doesn't just stop.
I'm saying it's not "every available channel" if you choose to not vote instead of choosing to protest by spoiling your ballot, and that doing so is tantamount to leaving your voice out of the...
I'm saying it's not "every available channel" if you choose to not vote instead of choosing to protest by spoiling your ballot, and that doing so is tantamount to leaving your voice out of the conversation. I'm glad you chose to continue the protest.
20 million non-voters will have 20 millions reasons for not voting. It's not as easy as saying "every non-voter is an extreme leftist." Expecting politicians to hear a message in silence is not...
20 million non-voters will have 20 millions reasons for not voting. It's not as easy as saying "every non-voter is an extreme leftist."
Expecting politicians to hear a message in silence is not going to help anyone's cause.
I think you should reflect on why in none of your replies have you addressed your dismissive tone, or acknowledged any areas where you could be communicating your argument in a way that is less...
Exemplary
I think you should reflect on why in none of your replies have you addressed your dismissive tone, or acknowledged any areas where you could be communicating your argument in a way that is less alienating to a person explicitly communicating that they feel unheard.
The "gotcha" style replies in this thread that don't attempt to seek understanding because you're already convinced you're 100% right are incredibly reddit-coded.
Their success at getting the most votes on this post regardless speaks to the validity of OP's feelings and how negative discourse perpetuates online.
I am not being "dismissive," I am confused. It feels like OP doesn't understand how many millions of people that politicians have to cater to. OP Explicitly states that they hold "wildly unpopular...
I am not being "dismissive," I am confused. It feels like OP doesn't understand how many millions of people that politicians have to cater to.
OP Explicitly states that they hold "wildly unpopular opinions" (middle of the second paragraph) because they are just so far, far, far, left.
Then they state that they want politicians who hear them specifically. Sometimes they choose not to vote because of this. But they themselves admitted to being a small niche portion of the population.
Politicians have to try to strike a balance for literally millions upon millions of people. They aren't going to talk specifically to those small niche pockets of hyper-leftists when there's little chance of that winning them any significant electorate. And if OP's opinions are as "wildly unpopular" as they claim, then voicing those hyper-left opinions to cater to people like OP will actually LOSE them votership.
It SUCKS. It sucks hard. I get it. I hate feeling unheard. I am in the same boat in my province. But we have to work with the systems we have because it's all we have.
Not voting is functionally not voicing a choice.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
I will always vote, and I will always advocate for others to vote.
This line here: "What I'm saying, I guess, is a very simple democratic process. If you want people to vote for you, you have to take them and what they want seriously, and at the very least make...
This line here:
"What I'm saying, I guess, is a very simple democratic process. If you want people to vote for you, you have to take them and what they want seriously, and at the very least make concessions to them."
This states directly that OP is hoping for politicians to voice that they see and are willing to make concessions to them. And insinuates (reading between the lines) that they would be more likely to vote for the candidate who does that.
But again, if OP's opinions are as wildly unpopular as they claim, then that will actively cause the politician doing so to LOSE other votes. Even if it gains them OP's. There is nothing to be gained for the politician to do that.
This is why I am still advocating to ALWAYS vote. Go be heard at protests, write letters, write opinion pieces in media, do all the things, but also vote. If all you do is protest, but don't vote, that's like running only 50% of the marathon. Maintaining a democracy is a marathon, it's not a sprint where a single vote is enough, nor is just going out to protests enough. You have to do ALL the things.
Here in the United States, the Republicans have branded Biden and Harris as the most radical leftist democrat communists this nation has ever seen, in spite of the fact that they have outright...
But again, if OP's opinions are as wildly unpopular as they claim, then that will actively cause the politician doing so to LOSE other votes. Even if it gains them OP's. There is nothing to be gained for the politician to do that.
Here in the United States, the Republicans have branded Biden and Harris as the most radical leftist democrat communists this nation has ever seen, in spite of the fact that they have outright milquetoast centrist pro-capitalism policies. Democrats have already lost the votes of most who fear left-wing politics, but since they don't actually take left-wing stances, they also lose the votes and enthusiasm of those in favor of left-wing politics. If the right is just going to lie and lie and lie and lie by claiming that Democrats are these radical leftists anyway, why not try making it true for once?
I 100% agree. Unfortunately, here in the United States we've built a political system that maintains a very distinct left/right divide. Since we have a winner-takes-all system of geographical...
I 100% agree. Unfortunately, here in the United States we've built a political system that maintains a very distinct left/right divide. Since we have a winner-takes-all system of geographical representation at basically all levels of government (except for in a couple cities and states which are experimenting with ranked-choice voting in the last few years), there is currently no chance for a third-party candidate to pull things in another direction, because any vote for a third party requires you to choose not to vote for the one of two major party candidates which you could maybe stomach. It's even worse in some D (and I'd assume R) stronghold cities where local elections are basically won during the primary because it's a given that their party will win the general.
It really is a two-team sport right now. But you don't win by playing the best game, just by having the most fans. And the center-left team has been taking their loudest fans for granted and act like they can win by attracting fans from the other team.
How do we reconcile the fact that our political system assumes, and even tries to impose, that the world is as simple as right vs left; when that has no basis in reality?
Like the other commenter I replied to, I am failing to understand where "silence" is coming from. Are you unaware of the protests and everything that leftists and left leaning people did leading...
Like the other commenter I replied to, I am failing to understand where "silence" is coming from. Are you unaware of the protests and everything that leftists and left leaning people did leading up to the election to be heard? Why does none of that count as communication in your mind. What specifically could we all have checked on our presidential ballot that would have clarified our message further? Your statement is painfully oversimplified. The voters Harris lost have not been silent at all, liberals just decided they didn't want to hear it and gambled that we were a small enough group not to matter. We need to be understood to move forward from here, that party will not recover from what they've done if they continue to plug their ears like this.
The silence comes from not voting. If you think Harris is bad for the left, Trump is 100x worse. If you didn't want right-wing, then not voting is not the answer to keeping Trump from steamrolling...
The silence comes from not voting. If you think Harris is bad for the left, Trump is 100x worse. If you didn't want right-wing, then not voting is not the answer to keeping Trump from steamrolling everything the left has fought for.
I don't want to sound annoying and condescending, but for the tens of thousands of people who marched in the streets, camped out at college campuses, and interrupted numerous Harris campaign...
I don't want to sound annoying and condescending, but for the tens of thousands of people who marched in the streets, camped out at college campuses, and interrupted numerous Harris campaign events, screaming, "Stop the genocide," what more should they have done?
100k people voted Uncommitted in what was essentially an uncontested primary in Michigan. Between that and the protests, I don't know how much more loud one has to get in order to be taken seriously, especially in a state that Biden won by about 150k.
I also fail to see how not voting and letting Trump get in is helping those causes? It's cutting off your nose to spite your face and being even more aggravated when we're stuck with the fascist...
I also fail to see how not voting and letting Trump get in is helping those causes? It's cutting off your nose to spite your face and being even more aggravated when we're stuck with the fascist dictator who is definitely not going to do what you want or listen to your side.
I work in early childhood education. When it comes to maintaining order in the classroom, the most important thing we do is set limits and follow through on them. It's the exact same thing. What...
I work in early childhood education. When it comes to maintaining order in the classroom, the most important thing we do is set limits and follow through on them. It's the exact same thing. What good are your threats if you don't follow through on them?
Also, I can't fault people for thinking their voices might be heard by the Democrats if a Republican is in office. Look at 2017 to 2020. Democrats were all about kids in cages, resist, defund reform the police, the public option, etc. Kinda the same story in 2008 with the hope, change, universal healthcare, anti-Iraq war ticket that Obama ran on.
So maybe the question shouldn't be "why must the left always stick to their principles" but rather, "why don't the Democrats stick to theirs?"
That quote is probably best used when you apply it to the people who were propping up Joe Biden in 2022. For the record, I voted. But it didn't really help, either. Looking at the American...
That quote is probably best used when you apply it to the people who were propping up Joe Biden in 2022.
For the record, I voted. But it didn't really help, either. Looking at the American political landscape, I don't think there's anything that Kamala Harris could have done to deliver the massive systemic changes that the US needs. The infrastructure is just not there for her or anyone that is to the left of the Heritage Foundation. Instead, she maybe would've made marginal improvements in a handful of areas while right wing grievances continued to fester and most likely turn into to big wins in '26 and/or '28.
Personally, I think voting is a lot like going to the dentist. It's important, and there are times where you absolutely must go, but ultimately the most important stuff is done between visits. If you think you can skate by on brushing for 30s a day then wake up the morning of your appointment and floss two times, you're mistaken. That's where "the left" (again, none of us in this thread know for sure who we are talking about), deserves the most criticism. Most of them think they can sit on the sidelines and bitch every couple of years and call it a day. Go to a DSA meeting in a major left-leaning city and its gonna be pretty lonely. Then again, that's how most Americans engage with politics. I know you're Canadian, so forgive me for doing my patriotic duty and keeping this about us.
No worries, I totally understand. Canada is a very close trading partner with the US so your elections actively affect us and we follow your elections closely because of it. No need to apologize...
No worries, I totally understand. Canada is a very close trading partner with the US so your elections actively affect us and we follow your elections closely because of it. No need to apologize for keeping it US-centric.
I 100% agree with you. Action and change is more than just voting day. It's also more than just protests. It is about doing it ALL. Maintaining a democracy takes WORK. Like a lot.
You can't just go out and protest a bunch, and then not vote. You also can't just go vote once and call it a day. You have to work at it, from all angles, all the time. You have to use EVERY avenue available to you. That means doing all of the above. Protests, voting, writing to your elected officials, writing opinion pieces in local media, etc. ALL of it contributes to getting voices out there and heard.
I agree that Kamala was fighting a losing game. She didn't have the ability to make the systemic changes required, nor do I think that alone would have won her the election. Trump catered hard to the crowd who wanted to blame everyone else for their troubles. He's very much stoked the "YOU vs THEM" arguments and it won him the election.
It sucks for Canada because as US is our largest trading partner, Trump's ideas of "America first" are going to screw us over big time.
Yeah, personally, I think the US needs a movement for a proper reform of the political system - the systemic changes that are, imo, needed, are pretty thorough and probably difficult to achieve...
I agree that Kamala was fighting a losing game. She didn't have the ability to make the systemic changes required, nor do I think that alone would have won her the election. Trump catered hard to the crowd who wanted to blame everyone else for their troubles. He's very much stoked the "YOU vs THEM" arguments and it won him the election.
Yeah, personally, I think the US needs a movement for a proper reform of the political system - the systemic changes that are, imo, needed, are pretty thorough and probably difficult to achieve without such a thing. I don't even know how it'd be possible for such a grassroots movement to start though. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the aftermath of Trump's second term will cause enough ruckus for it to form organically. At least I hope so.
It sucks for Canada because as US is our largest trading partner, Trump's ideas of "America first" are going to screw us over big time.
Yeah, I'm from the Netherlands and some of his import policies are going to hurt us, as a trading country, in particular. I can only imagine what it's like for you guys as your only neighbour. Take care man. :|
Can you elaborate on that? Because that’s the real issue here and you don’t seem to really explain. I find it hard to picture a situation where there exists a modern liberal democracy where no...
But there were times when I chose not to
Can you elaborate on that? Because that’s the real issue here and you don’t seem to really explain. I find it hard to picture a situation where there exists a modern liberal democracy where no candidate was preferable.
You should be logical and not emotional. Vote with your brain, not your heart. Be an adult.
Honestly I don’t think this is a productive avenue for arguing because such engagement with politics is simply uninterested in the things one should be interested in if you believe in liberal...
Exemplary
Honestly I don’t think this is a productive avenue for arguing because such engagement with politics is simply uninterested in the things one should be interested in if you believe in liberal democracy.
De Tocqueville talks about how what makes American democracy work is the preponderance of voluntary associations. People go around forming groups and committees to take care of stuff in their communities. Those committees give them day-to-day practice communicating, collaborating, persuading, deliberating, and getting along with people with whom they disagree for mutual benefit and the common good. They’re not there to promote an ideology, they’re there specifically to solve problems.
This experience creates an instinctive, gut level understanding of how stuff gets done democratically that translates to higher levels of government as well. Nobody does this anymore. Very few people participate in organizations and associations. For most people their primary method of engaging with the world outside their immediate control is to buy a commodity or service. This consumer preference model means you approach things like shopping for a car or buying an appliance. You’re not looking for who has judgement, who can be worked with, who works hard. You’re looking for what features they have, what promises are they making, what sorts of tribal signifiers are coming through their advertising that indicates they’re “like me.” You’re not asking “how can I/we create the change we want to see?” you are instead asking “where and how can I acquire the ‘change’ I want?”
If you approach politics with this sort of “consumer preference” framework you’re just gonna be incapable of even having this conversation. It literally doesn’t fit into your model of how the world works or what politics even is. It’s, ironically for leftists, a fully commoditized and market minded approach that’s incompatible with actually achieving leftist outcomes because you’re trying to reduce the commoditization of everything and you can’t do that approaching politics as a commodity. But it’s seductive, and it’s very suited for mass media and advertising. Social media supercharges it because social media makes everyone behave like an advertiser to get attention.
There’s no fixing it through arguing or persuasion. You have to actually teach people how to democracy by making them interact with the world in ways other than buying shit and blasting their opinions out into the ether.
There’s a reason “leftist” governments aren’t democratic. They don’t cultivate this sensibility. They, like right wingers, view everything as a matter of commodity distribution or exchange. It’s a patronage and transactional model of politics rather than a collaborative one. We are fooling ourselves if we think they have values compatible with democracy, which is why they seem more comfortable with authoritarians in power than (lower case) democrats, even if those authoritarians have diametrically opposed social and/or economic policies from them, they’re playing the same game. They’re speaking the same language.
Daywalker, We in 'the west' live in neoliberal capitalist societies in which the wealth gap is getting larger every year and people die because of poverty while billionaires try to control the...
Daywalker,
We in 'the west' live in neoliberal capitalist societies in which the wealth gap is getting larger every year and people die because of poverty while billionaires try to control the public opinion.
We live on a burning planet, just starting to get an idea of how devastating climate change is going to be in the next decades.
We see a rise of fascist ideas in politics. Violence as a political tool is already being normalized again.
I strongly believe: it is not the time to cling to our own ideas and feelings anymore.
Unless the left stops fighting over all the hyperspecific issues that maybe one percent of the public actually cares about, unless we stop calling each other bigots because we disagree over single issues, unless the left unites behind the simple ideas of human rights and economic equality for everybody, we are doomed in a very real sense.
Millions of women in the US will have a very hard time getting proper medical care in the coming years, because people didn't vote for it. This is a fucking reality. People die over this. And it will only get worse in the coming decades.
It is not the time to think "Everybody else gets one, but not me". We need to see the bigger picture or very bad things happen.
We need to unite, worldwide, or we get what we didn't vote for.
This is the core issue i feel too many people aren't seeing. Yes Democrats sold out their country to the capital and I fully understand why leftist wouldn't want to vote for them. But it truly was...
We in 'the west' live in neoliberal capitalist societies in which the wealth gap is getting larger every year and people die because of poverty while billionaires try to control the public opinion.
This is the core issue i feel too many people aren't seeing. Yes Democrats sold out their country to the capital and I fully understand why leftist wouldn't want to vote for them. But it truly was the lesser of two evils. Voting democrat could have given Americans at least a chance at pushing for more social policies by getting out on the streets and demonstrating for it. Good luck with that in the christo fascist hell that is now to come.
There's always the argument that having a Democrat in power actually makes it less possible to criticize certain horrifying things the US government does, because the "Vote Blue No Matter Who"...
There's always the argument that having a Democrat in power actually makes it less possible to criticize certain horrifying things the US government does, because the "Vote Blue No Matter Who" crowd treats it like team sports. The number of Democrats who started defending the same children in cages on the border they'd decried Trump for as soon as it was their guy in office back in 2020 was really sickening, for instance.
This is one of the most infuriating things about modern politics for me (in the US.) Seeing people change their tune immediately about an issue once they become the ones in power, or just ignore...
This is one of the most infuriating things about modern politics for me (in the US.) Seeing people change their tune immediately about an issue once they become the ones in power, or just ignore it completely. It's so incredibly frustrating because they give you no room to criticize the hypocrisy without risking being labeled an enemy of the party and ostracized.
Millions of women would still have a hard time getting proper medical care if this election had gone the other way, because the Democrats have time and again failed to pass federal protections for...
Millions of women in the US will have a very hard time getting proper medical care in the coming years, because people didn't vote for it.
Millions of women would still have a hard time getting proper medical care if this election had gone the other way, because the Democrats have time and again failed to pass federal protections for abortion even when they had the power to do so. Women are already dying for this under a Democratic administration. It's not hard to see how one might not see their vote in the presidential election as actually accomplishing anything positive on that front.
On the plus side, several states did pass abortion protection measures this election. A few didn't, but more did. I think voting downballot like this when possible is a lot more useful than voting for Harris in terms of concrete effects on abortion access.
As for discarding issues that only the 1% care about... how many principles should we be discarding, exactly? At what point do a candidate's policies become close enough to those of "the other side" to make not voting for them reasonable? That threshold is going to be different for different people, and I find it difficult to empathize with people who treat caring about vulnerable groups of people who are dying as a result of Harris's policies as something trivial to be brushed aside.
I myself voted for Harris this year, because I thought it was the pragmatic choice. But she certainly did almost everything she could in her campaign to convince me not to.
No, not discarding. When I mention the left should unite behind human rights, that includes all '1% issues' we currently have. I believe that the left needs to start to address all human beings....
As for discarding issues that only the 1% care about...
No, not discarding. When I mention the left should unite behind human rights, that includes all '1% issues' we currently have.
I believe that the left needs to start to address all human beings. Not specifically trans, not lgbt, not minorities, but everybody including trans, lgbt, minorities. The focus has to change.
When young white men are running to the fascists, the left has fucked up. When poor workers unite behind the billionaires the left has fucked up. That can't go on in the future.
The most important issues are climate change and (financial) inequality. If those issues aren't adressed, we all will suffer and die by them. We literally have no future if we keep talking about things that are less important than that.
And the left needs to address everybody to get there, otherwise the fascists will win.
Well...obviously that's not voiced because you would never in a million years vote for "them", so this wording would only be used in internal discussions of how "we" can get voter turnout to be...
A vote not cast for us is a vote cast for them (interestingly, the opposite of this is never voiced: "a vote not cast for them is a vote for us.")
Well...obviously that's not voiced because you would never in a million years vote for "them", so this wording would only be used in internal discussions of how "we" can get voter turnout to be lower on the other side.
Otherwise, I don't really get what your point is (nor that of the other comment discussing your word choice).
Why would you ever expect politicians to pander to you if you admit that you're at the extreme left? You're a niche. They will always choose not to represent you when they could try to represent the largest target possible (swing voters).
If there are 10,000 people like you who have a 50% chance of voting for left and a 50% chance of not voting at all and there are a million people with a 47% chance of voting left and a 53% chance of voting right, why would they pursue you with more than a token effort. If they go really hard for you, they could gain 1000 votes and lose 100,000 or more.
If the calculated decisions to ignore the left to appeal to the right were working, then leftists like OP not voting would be part of those calculated decisions. Why blame leftists for not voting...
If the calculated decisions to ignore the left to appeal to the right were working, then leftists like OP not voting would be part of those calculated decisions. Why blame leftists for not voting when you yourself are framing the issue as courting leftist votes not being worth it compared to alternatives? If OP's vote is worthless to the Dems, then there's zero reason to criticize them for not voting for them.
Disappointed by the other replies on this post which so far have done nothing but repeat points back to you that you already addressed, and are also typical of what I'm reading elsewhere on...
Disappointed by the other replies on this post which so far have done nothing but repeat points back to you that you already addressed, and are also typical of what I'm reading elsewhere on Tildes.
With the caveat that I do use my vote whenever I have the opportunity, I empathise a lot with you, Daywalker. Everybody gets the freedom to honestly express their actual preferences except you. And when you do lend your power to a coalition which actively doesn't want the things you want, you unsurprisingly get nothing for it. If you were an American voting this time, you got less than nothing. And of course, nobody feels it necessary to offer any sympathy to a leftist for this. It's hard not to feel dispirited.
I think there are some counterpoints which do actually take into account what you're saying, but I won't try to make them here.
Voting discourse quality everywhere is at an all time low, understandably due to what just happened in the US this week. It is still a shame to see someone get dismissed and attacked for sharing...
Voting discourse quality everywhere is at an all time low, understandably due to what just happened in the US this week. It is still a shame to see someone get dismissed and attacked for sharing their opinions (especially when they're being misrepresented.)
I see this happen quite a bit from some specific users on this site and it's frustrating that it has been accepted as the norm. I always try to engage in discussions here in good faith and positively respond to comments. When I reach a point in the discussion where I know it won't end up resolving naturally I usually try to find some common ground with the other user and thank them for their time and counterpoints.
People have gotten too used to the constant
Nitpicking replies style from reddit
And will go on for hours and sometimes even days at a time responding to the weakest part of the comment while completely missing the forest for the trees. (I have fallen into this trap before too.)
I hope and wish that people would consider that they don't need to insert themselves into every single thread and make their opinion known just for the love of the argument. Sometimes it's ok to let people disagree with you and move on.
It's worse this time I think because there are a lot of people who are terrified because depending on how the next four years goes, it's possible that things will be restructured such that nobody...
Voting discourse quality everywhere is at an all time low, understandably due to what just happened in the US this week. It is still a shame to see someone get dismissed and attacked for sharing their opinions (especially when they're being misrepresented.)
It's worse this time I think because there are a lot of people who are terrified because depending on how the next four years goes, it's possible that things will be restructured such that nobody but the most extreme right capitalist conservatives will have any kind of seat at the table for decades to come. That doesn't make pointing fingers any more acceptable but it's understandable that emotions are running hot.
I the early days, there were a lot more left-leaning voices on Tildes. Some of them were very...intense and maybe a little too passionate and thus got hit with the ban hammer (pour one out for...
I the early days, there were a lot more left-leaning voices on Tildes. Some of them were very...intense and maybe a little too passionate and thus got hit with the ban hammer (pour one out for alyaza). Others left on their own volition, and many of the reasons were explained in the hundreds of navel-gazing posts that define this little community. But one thing that has been pretty consistent is this little debate that we're all having in this post. If you go back and skim through the posts with 2020 us presidential election tag, you'll see a lot of the same arguments and some of the same usernames. But the overall vibe has been a lot more liberal/centrist since the reddit influx a few years back.
If it helps to some extend... I remember that I had very snappy responses to other people about the internal politics of my country, the Netherlands, even when they discussed in good faith, after...
If it helps to some extend... I remember that I had very snappy responses to other people about the internal politics of my country, the Netherlands, even when they discussed in good faith, after we had an election where the far-right PVV won. I can't say for certain whether that's what's going on here too - I can't speak for others and I certainly cannot read minds of others - but it may still be too early, to raw if you will, to have a good discussion with people who are going to be directly influenced by this recent election.
In recent months I started to realize, despite all the niceties of the site, majority of Tildes is a fan of the status quo politics in many ways, which of course has a lot of alienating narratives.
If I may add something here, for people to be alright with change they often need to feel safe with changing. Well, or they need to feel like they current status quo is unsafe and an alternative is safer. So
Holding even more tightly to the status quo doesn't obviously work.
Is something I agree with, and I do see some good discussion in this thread as well. When I take a step back the impression I get is that it's simply very raw. Add the current context of the middle-east and well, it's not as much as that people like the status-quo, but more of a 'everything-is-raw-and-heated-so-default-feels-safe' kind of scenario. With the US, the two-party system, Electoral College, it's history of two opposing factions and the polarisation that is occurring in many places it's easy to believe one side can protect you from the other.
That is too say, I agree with many of your points. Though I'd take in the context differently into account. That's just my view though, and emotionally people are in so many different places that I may be completely wrong.
Disagreements aside, I appreciate your presence on Tildes. Partially because you're willing to go against the flow of opinion here, but also because you often bring different perspectives on the table. Cheers
Something to take into account is that one side is trying to damage voting in various ways. If you don't vote for the side that isn't doing that, then later, if they do agree to the things you're...
Something to take into account is that one side is trying to damage voting in various ways. If you don't vote for the side that isn't doing that, then later, if they do agree to the things you're asking for, you may not be able to vote for them to do it. I recognize that's a lot of hypotheticals, but it's also a scenario that we've seen begin to play out at the state level. Lots of progressive candidates have run in states that already have voter suppression mechanisms in place. I'm not going to say that they would definitely win without those mechanisms, but they might, and any that do would be a great example for future candidates to run on. If you don't vote in one election, you might not be able to vote in the next.
I empathize with you, but I disagree on voting strategy quite a bit. I'm in the US and I'm desperate for true progressive candidates. However, in the US, our system pretty advertantly encourages a...
I empathize with you, but I disagree on voting strategy quite a bit. I'm in the US and I'm desperate for true progressive candidates. However, in the US, our system pretty advertantly encourages a two party system instead of a many party system. It's possible for a third party to get a movement going like we saw with Perot in the 90's, but it requires an absurd amount of organization to do that (though possible). Because of this, we essentially have two choices each election. One choice is often, at worst, the status quo, but otherwise usually has options to move us forward over time. The other option is rarely the status quo and frequently sends us backwards. In my mind, if left leaning people are not willing to organize a movement behind a third party progressive candidate, or not willing to sway a democratic candidate to be more progressive in policy, we should all be voting for the candidate that gives us the most progress, especially when the alternative is a literal fascist who wants to take voting away and take away the rights of over half the country if he's allowed to.
In 2024's case, Harris offered first time homebuyer credits, higher taxes for the rich, getting abortion rights back, expanding child tax credits, raising tax on stock buybacks, gun control, a voting rights act, passing the equality act, cap the price of insulin, imposing term limits on the supreme court, raising minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, legalize weed, reviving the federal affordable connectivity program, and more.
The truth is that even if this isn't the perfect platform that a lot of left leaning people want, for example Harris would not be taking steps to get us towards universal healthcare, her platform would have progressed us towards a better future and she is one of the more progressive candidates we've had in the US for president (sad but true). Trump on the other hand wants to walk civil liberties back 150 years, impose tariffs to hurt everyone except the rich, and get rid of voting if he is legally able to.
In my mind, when democracy is actually on the line due to how much trump wants to fuck us up, everyone needed to vote. I know a number of left leaning people stayed home and refused to vote for Harris over whatever issue, but not only is Harris likely better on whatever issue that might be over the alternative, these same people didn't bother to vote in local, state, or senate/congress races either, they just didn't vote at all. I'm inclined to think many of these people just don't give a shit about what happens and are hiding behind a moral high ground of "I didn't vote for Harris because she's not progressive enough with x issue" while we allow trump to win and be worse on x issue. Additionally, many of the abstainers could have organized to vote for a third party that did excite them. In the US, if your party gets over 5% of the popular vote, you secure federal campaign funding for the next election. It can help a ton with picking up momentum, but these stay homers didn't even do that, which is part of the reason I feel that either the number of these people is either really small or it's large, but they don't give a single fuck and would rather just complain online.
I'm not trying to make this sound like an attack or a lecture. I think it's a mindset difference that I can't understand and vice versa. Frankly, I don't understand the act of choosing not to vote at all, it's one of the few times we as a people have a direct and powerful voice to directly change policy and representation, but 30% of our country doesn't use that (enough people where if they banded up, they could nearly get any candidate they wanted into viable contention (of course that 30% aren't all on the same page, but you get my meaning)). I don't understand refusing to vote for a candidate based on an issue where the other candidate is worse. For example, I'm unhappy with what's going on in Palestine, but even if I don't think Harris will solve the problem or even make it better, I know Trump is going to allow the genocide to happen no matter what and possibly accelerate it. I gladly voted Harris this election, not because she closely matches me on every view, but because she was going to give this country genuine progress towards my views, if she were able to enact her plans. That doesn't mean I'm happy with her on every issue, but I was confident voting anyways because I know if I'm not voting for her and if no third parties are viable at the moment, that trump is winning and is making millions of lives worse.
To me, left leaning non-voters seem to be doing a trolley problem. Their options are to pull the lever (vote) for a candidate who is going to overall be better in pretty much every way. That candidate might not be perfect or even good on every issue, but overall represents steady progress in a country that's been slow to progress. If they don't pull the level, a much worse candidate is then allowed to take power, causing suffering for tens of millions or more, but because they didn't pull the lever, they feel they can't be "guilty" for what happens. The way I view it, abstaining is saying that you're okay with the results no matter how they happen. That means you're okay with Trump being in power if he does win, which he did. I don't think left leaning people are okay with Trump being in power, so why did they not then turn up to vote?
I get it, I am also incredibly frustrated with our two party system here. I'm envious of countries that allow you more and better choices. But we don't change this system for the better by sitting around and doing nothing, we change it by voting for as much progress as we can, voting to keep the fascism at bay, and then both pressuring the more progressive party to adopt more progressive policy without alienating their largest voter bases or left leaning people organize to put up a progressive candidate of their own that can then possibly take the reigns from the establishment party. In no case, however, should people sit back and allow fascism to take over.
Secondly, to address the elephant of the room that is Palestine, since it seems that is the #1 issue left leaning non-voters chose to not vote on, at least in online spaces: some view Harris as complicit in the genocide in Palestine. It is true that our current government administration is sending aid and weapons to Israel. It is also true Israel is performing a genocide. It is also true that our current government is not pressuring Israel enough. Some will look at these factors and say that our government is complicit in the genocide. I somewhat disagree, but I think the situation is very complex and I don't agree with the people that think it's a good idea for our country to cold turkey stop aid or to actively work against Israel, I don't agree with the people thinking that our country "just can" end the conflict, and I have some reasons why I think that.
For example, if we stopped sending aid to Israel, I think that would have a few negative consequences not being thought about: we lose a voice at the negotiating table with Netanyahu. Right now, we can at least try to mitigate damage, even if he doesn't listen. If we cut aid, he's not going to listen to a damn word we say. Secondly, this gives Iran a chance to enact a genocide of their own on Israel and while Israel may or may not have the means to currently defend themselves, they would very much have a leg to stand on when arguing that we're allowing an ally to be attacked. This might also piss off a number of Israeli and Jewish voters back home and then we're back to square one of some demographic being mad towards the US about the conflict. Lastly, even if these steps happened, I do not believe that would be enough for the non-voters to go out and vote. They're already not voting for anything, not just abstaining from president. I have little reason to believe they'd go for someone like Harris even if she stopped sending Israel aid. I think these same people would just move on to the next reason why they're staying home.
Like I said earlier, I wish this conflict wasn't going on. I wish the US could find some way to more positively influence the conflict. However, I think a lot of it is out of our control as a country. Even if we have the means to forcefully end the conflict, it can potentially cause further issues. I don't personally think Harris or Biden are complicit in genocide. I think it's true that they could be doing more, but I won't pretend to know what that more is, I'm not an expert on this conflict. Lastly, I think non-voters are not as informed as they think they are and are allowing our democracy to crumble because they can't bring themselves to vote for any candidate, even one that more closely fits their views than we've had an option for in a long time.
I didn't intend for this to be this long, but I did want to get all of my thoughts out on it, since I've had a number of negative feelings towards non-voters this week. I think this election in particular was not the time to be protesting, when the alternative option is literal fascism. In this case, "This is not the time to be having these arguments. It's a time for unity" is actually true, even if this has been a talking point in the past when the consequences are not as dire as this election. Mostly, I'm incredibly disappointed in the millions of people that couldn't even be bothered to vote for local elections, school board, state amendments, state elections, and even congress and senate, or who couldn't be bothered to band together behind a candidate that does represent them, and instead complain online about their choices, complain online about the outcome, and then continue to do absolutely nothing.
While I also wish that the Democrats were more left/progressive, I typically don't feel like I have a choice. I'm living in Europe right now, but visit the US often. Neither party captures the...
While I also wish that the Democrats were more left/progressive, I typically don't feel like I have a choice. I'm living in Europe right now, but visit the US often.
Neither party captures the policy I want to see, but one is significantly further away than the other. And I do think some of the typical arguments do hold weight - I don't feel like I have a choice to abstain and not voting for the left benefits the right, allowing them to strip away my rights. There is a much lower danger of that from the left.
I'm trans, although I transitioned long ago and no one would know, but if they manage to hamper medical transition or revert legal changes, that would be a serious threat to my well-being. Not to mention the thousands of young people who would be impacted. So I do think it's a matter of privilege to feel that you have a choice.
(ETA: I do think though that the hyper specific identity politics are harmful and that many young people today are not trans in the sense that they need medical intervention. Both parties are missing the mark there completely)
I've had this conversation with my American partner many times, and I could never ever consider "not voting" to be an actual option. You're not going to win here. Not you, not the leftist that...
I've had this conversation with my American partner many times, and I could never ever consider "not voting" to be an actual option. You're not going to win here. Not you, not the leftist that realises both options in the election will continue to support Israel. Not the leftist that wants high speed rail and universal healthcare. That's simply not on the table. It sucks, but you play the cards you're given.
Voting is like public transit. It's not going to get you to your destination, but you'll take the option that gets you closest. And even if it doesn't by much, I still think it's your democratic duty to move as much in the correct direction as you can.
This basically comes down to whether the USA is a democracy, and the core problem is that it's not, and we need to recognize that. Go back to 2012: it's FPTP, there are only 2 real choices. It's a...
This basically comes down to whether the USA is a democracy, and the core problem is that it's not, and we need to recognize that.
Go back to 2012: it's FPTP, there are only 2 real choices. It's a democracy. Come 2016, one choice is objectively worse, and dangerous to boot. You only have 1 real choice.
I'm not saying this is good or right, but US democracy effectively ended in 2016. People want a choice, but they don't have any others except the "burn the country down" option.
But I suppose we're actually talking about this, okay then. We have "tactical voting" vs "tactical fascism". Temporary fascism, maybe, but tactical fascism nonetheless. This is accelerationist logic, that sounds uncomfortably similar to what the 1930s German communist party used, where they focused on tearing down the socialist party at the expense of letting Hitler gain power and ultimately making the whole fight moot.
Yes, it's fucked. The US desperately needs real democracy, but ultimately voting Trump is playing Russian roulette. The vote is a referendum on fascism or get-fucked-by-democrats, not a real choice.
Ok I was going to make a separate post about this, and maybe I will, but I have a response to your post which is related. One reason I've been upset about the election is because so many people...
Ok I was going to make a separate post about this, and maybe I will, but I have a response to your post which is related.
One reason I've been upset about the election is because so many people voted against their own interests because they are wrong about reality.
When I've asked people why they voted for Trump, or didn't vote, they usually give me a reason that is not tied to reality. Let's say they say something about the price of groceries. Trump is not going to reduce the price of groceries, and things he says he will do will cause harm in the long term and more harm in the longer term.
So it puts pressure on me to try to correct them, and frankly that is quite stressful. In the past, I've known that people are wrong about a lot of things but their wrongness has not harmed me directly. For example, they go to a megachurch and give money to some liar who flies around in a private jet while preaching the opposite of what is in the Bible. That mostly just harms them. When it's politics, I have way more interest in their bad decisions based on lies. I'm sort of able to sway the opinions closer to reality for people I know really well, For others it's just a waste of time and causes a lot of stressful arguments.
In your case, I disagree with you but I think you have a grasp on reality. Of course it's possible with different people who have access to true and correct information to come to different conclusions. You and I disagree on strategies for making society better, but I don't detect that you are just repeating talking points. Except the part about genocide. You will get a lot of pushback about that because there are a ton of bad actors and bots who use that term to try to bothsides politics and possible policy choices by democrats and republicans. One of the top strategies of the right wing is to discourage people from voting. Yes I (somewhat) understand the history of Palestine but voting for Harris was an imperfect harm reduction strategy, especially if you consider the fate of people in Ukraine, American women, damage to the climate, and all the other damage caused by having a mentally ill fascist surrounded by other immoral criminals running the most powerful country in the world.
People are building all sorts of narratives about this without even having the basic facts in order. Consider that Harris added votes relative to Biden in many swing states — she got 37k more...
People are building all sorts of narratives about this without even having the basic facts in order.
Consider that Harris added votes relative to Biden in many swing states — she got 37k more votes than Biden did in Wisconsin for example. She lost because Trump added even more. Same thing for Georgia and NC. MI and PA were very close to 2020 totals, but Trump added 100k more voters in each state.
This election wasn’t lost by disaffected leftists sitting home, where they did do that was largely only in non-swing states where it didn’t matter. Trump was just able to turn out a bunch of low propensity voters.
And I’m not sure why you’re singling out leftists as being uniquely disaffected — I think you’re not really doing a good job of putting yourself in the shoes of other people. There are plenty of people who are also disaffected by the direction of the Republican Party who unfortunately still voted for them for one reason or another.
I'm right there with you OP. Your post's point is proved by some of the unpleasant people who responded doing the exact things, saying the exact things, you describe. They're centrists, or right...
I'm right there with you OP. Your post's point is proved by some of the unpleasant people who responded doing the exact things, saying the exact things, you describe. They're centrists, or right of you in some way, and would rather blame and shout at you, because they can since the candidate they 'voted' for will never be in a position for them to personally blame and shout at, rather than examine the failing of the failed candidate they chose to vote for as the compromise.
Which really just makes bad worse, for you and any other really upset and unrepresented voter. Crap like what's happening in this thread is exactly why (especially) Lefties feel so detached and isolated with the political climate.
When holding one's nose to vote for a candidate that will only do something you truly want to happen by accident is the only "realistic option" due to things like FPTP and lack of options, and then you see candidates even further Right than that non-option win anyway ... you definitely begin to wonder what's the point.
Which just pisses Centrists off, because they want your vote for their candidate. They don't want to do anything to get your vote, and they will fall all over themselves to primly tell you their candidate just can't do any of those things or risk alienating the Center or the Center-Right, but they still think they deserve your support anyway simply because they're not Far-Right.
They and their candidate aren't Left either (not even close, and their candidate is usually involved in beating back any Left candidates as threats), and won't ever even give lip service to even one Left issue you'd like to see action on, but boy will they light you up for not being one of their safe votes. "How dare you" and "don't you care" and "I thought you had principles" and "help those weaker than you."
They don't care. They just care they didn't win. They don't care to change why they're not winning, they're just angry they didn't win. It's a human reaction, because humans fear change and want to win (or, at the very least, hate losing). So they lash out, and there you go.
I think the political structure that you live under is very different from the one in the US. I will never criticize someone living outside of the US for not voting, as I probably won't have a...
I think the political structure that you live under is very different from the one in the US. I will never criticize someone living outside of the US for not voting, as I probably won't have a thorough grasp of the way that their political system functions. I don't think comparing non-voters from the US to anywhere else (or frankly any two places with different electoral systems) really holds. In the US, for President, one of two people is going to win. Unless there's a revolution first, and I haven't been invited to help with any, there are only two possible options. One is saying "I'm gonna let that guy kill thousands of people" and the other one is saying "I'm gonna let him kill double that number, and I'm also going to kill thousands of people myself." If I'm not ready to overthrow the government, and I'm not, I can only influence the situation in one of two ways by voting. Morally, I must vote for the one that will lead to fewer deaths, even if that's far too many. It sounds like your options are between "I'm gonna kill these guys" and "I'm gonna kill these other guys" and "I'm gonna kill some from column A and some from column B" and I can see that being way muddier and less clear cut. That's not the situation in America, though.
It also hurts to see all of the insinuations that I must be a centrist or a liberal or to the right, or that I like the status quo. I am quite far to the left. I would like to see the American government torn down and rebuilt if it could be done without loss of life. But that's not going to happen before January. That's not going to happen before Trump starts hurting people. And the democrats are not going to take this as a sign that they need to move to the left. The protests are good, we have to keep that up. Calling representatives is good. Building local coalitions is good. And I will happily, ecstatically eat my words if this leads to more left leaning platforms in the midterms, let alone the next general, but I will be extremely surprised, and in the mean time a lot of innocent people will have suffered and died.
You've phrased this very eloquently, OP. I'm in complete agreement. I think it's ridiculous how many people are willing to vote for an openly genocidal candidate just because it's not the other...
You've phrased this very eloquently, OP. I'm in complete agreement. I think it's ridiculous how many people are willing to vote for an openly genocidal candidate just because it's not the other openly genocidal candidate.
Maybe it's different when looking from across the pond? But both Kamala and Trump look very similar. They have largely the same policies. I have trouble understanding how so many people in the USA have such a strong split of opinion between right wing candidates 1 and 2.
It's harm reduction. Under Trump the situation is Gaza will almost certainly get worse. He's extremely swayed by flattery from Netanyahu (and others like him) and much of his Christian base...
It's harm reduction. Under Trump the situation is Gaza will almost certainly get worse. He's extremely swayed by flattery from Netanyahu (and others like him) and much of his Christian base literally believes that Jews need to control the Holy Land for their savior to return. Palestinian lives, any number, are a small price to pay for the fulfillment of prophecy. Trump is clearly not a Christian, but he's vulnerable to the flattery of (rich) Christians. He also does not give half a shit about international law or even keeping up a pretense about caring about international law.
Also Trump's immigration plans will, if followed through as described, almost inevitably lead to genocide right there on American soil.
Genocide might seem like the worst thing a government can do, until you realize they could do two genocides. That might sound flip, but it's the situation we're facing now.
This comment is only somewhat connected to your points and from the perspective of a multi-party system (i.e. Germany). A big problem the left has that the right does not have as much is...
This comment is only somewhat connected to your points and from the perspective of a multi-party system (i.e. Germany).
A big problem the left has that the right does not have as much is splintering.
More left-leaning voters tend to have a higher bar for authenticity. If a nominee or party does not do as they preach and are not open for criticism, the voter quickly looks for another party more aligned with their principles, or in your case refuse to support them. Right-leaning voters are more forgiving, as long as the main direction aligns with their beliefs.
This leads to left voters splitting up in smaller parties, while the right clusteres up in fewer but bigger parties (AFD, CDU, SPD).
Look at the green party for example. One of the core principles is the protection of bodily autonomy. They take cases like SA seriously and don't sweep it under the rug.
But recently it came out that one of the key figures that was known for upholding these principles not only knew about a case for years, but actively discouraged the victim from coming forward.
Following this incident (plus some other major issues) lead to a big spike in people leaving the party (mostly young Fundis -> background info at the end), since the party does not seem to uphold the promises they make.
An example from the other side could be a gay politician from the CDU. He lives in a gay relationship, while preaching about the atomic family and how everyone should aspire for it.
Background to the green party:
There are two main currents inside the party - the Fundis and the Realos, with differing ideologies.
The Realos, aka the realists, are leaning more to the middle/right and have either the standpoint that the party should compromise on their ideals to come into power and become a party of the middle, or their ideals align more closely with more right leaning parties.
The Fundis, aka fundamentalists, do not think that coming into power by pandering to beliefs contradicting their own is the right way and refuse to do so.
Realos tend to be older, while Fundis tend to be younger. Currently the Realos are on top, which is also a reason for the mass exodus of mostly young Fundis, who do not feel like they are heard and the party represents them.
Right-leaning voters can be more unified, but I don't think this is always the case. The recent UK election is a good example of splintering the right-wing vote, for example. I think fear of the...
Right-leaning voters can be more unified, but I don't think this is always the case. The recent UK election is a good example of splintering the right-wing vote, for example. I think fear of the right-wing vote splintering is actually a pretty big part of why the CDU has been travelling rightwards in response to the AfD as well.
Yeah, I totally get you. I am there myself. Most people wouldn't even consider the socialist stance, they all seem to think about politics along the the liberal-conservative edge of the...
Yeah, I totally get you. I am there myself. Most people wouldn't even consider the socialist stance, they all seem to think about politics along the the liberal-conservative edge of the liberalism-conservatism-socialism triangle, always tough-on-this and lenient-on-that and never consider simply committing to help each other.
I believe it stems from capitalism. People are so used to transactional relationships and zero-sum nature of economic power that they simply fail to see collaboration as an option. Increasingly at the personal level as well, especially as they get squeezed by shortage of money in the real economy and they have to be strict with themselves.
I just hope that at some point people will "wake up". Drugs too expensive? OK, let's build a cooperative to make them cheaply. Doctors too expensive? OK, let's teach ourselves what we can treat safely and build our own facilities for the basic stuff from flu, through physiotherapy to setting bones. Abortion illegal? Cook up misoprostol. Cannot afford books to teach kids? Pirate them or even better, write some free ones.
I mean, as they money slowly drains out to the top, people will still need stuff. Maybe if they make it together, they will learn how to cooperate in the process once again. And if they do, then it's only a small step to build up some local manufacturing again. Maybe an open source tractor. That would be something.
But yeah, I cannot really imagine people abandoning capitalism voluntarily.
The simple transactional nature of it is so, so, so convenient.
How would a system like this prevent snakeoil salesmen and people who are only pretending to have training from hurting people? That sort of thing was rampant prior to government regulation.
Drugs too expensive? OK, let's build a cooperative to make them cheaply. Doctors too expensive? OK, let's teach ourselves what we can treat safely and build our own facilities for the basic stuff from flu, through physiotherapy to setting bones.
How would a system like this prevent snakeoil salesmen and people who are only pretending to have training from hurting people? That sort of thing was rampant prior to government regulation.
These people are still there, peddling snake oil en large and most governments don't really care. Have you heard of homeopathy? Magnet therapy? Cupping? Drinking colloidal silver? Remember how...
These people are still there, peddling snake oil en large and most governments don't really care. Have you heard of homeopathy? Magnet therapy? Cupping? Drinking colloidal silver? Remember how people were peddling supposed guaranteed COVID cures?
I mean the actual reason we don't see it as much anymore is that it's easier to get an actual treatment and most people agree that it usually works decently. I also have this feeling that snake oil was prevalent where/when better treatment was not really known, which is somewhat corroborated by the COVID situation.
If my (pretty dystopic) vision ever comes to be, I guess snake oil salesmen would be seen more often as actual treatment would become less accessible and people more desperate.
It's there, but there are limits. You can't sell arsenic and opium as cough syrup anymore. The answer to cupping and homeopathy is more regulation, not less.
It's there, but there are limits. You can't sell arsenic and opium as cough syrup anymore. The answer to cupping and homeopathy is more regulation, not less.
That's because we have organizations like the FDA which mandate drug trials to show that a drug is safe and more effective than placebo. Otherwise, the drug (or treatment) must state that it is...
the actual reason we don't see it as much anymore is that it's easier to get an actual treatment and most people agree that it usually works decently
That's because we have organizations like the FDA which mandate drug trials to show that a drug is safe and more effective than placebo.
Otherwise, the drug (or treatment) must state that it is not evaluated by the FDA, if it is allowed to be sold at all.
Don't get me wrong, I think there's plenty of low-hanging fruit for reducing costs via de-professionalization of low-risk needs. Like having nurse-only evaluations of kids during cold/flu season to run tests and check for ear infections to properly gate against overuse of antibiotics.
Untrained people can't be trusted with antibiotics because they'll try to take them for everything. And in doing so, will drastically reduce their effectiveness as more bacteria develop resistance.
I think underlying the post is some nihilism in the two party system. They are both serving capital interests and courting the working class. While one gives pittance too and the other speaks too...
I think underlying the post is some nihilism in the two party system. They are both serving capital interests and courting the working class. While one gives pittance too and the other speaks too but actively kneecaps.
There is a need for a labor movement in the United States. Labor is a voting bloc without a party.
I don't want to get heavy into the weeds on this, but I will say that in a healthier political environment, I think a no vote is fine, mostly as some way of signaling that these candidates do not...
I don't want to get heavy into the weeds on this, but I will say that in a healthier political environment, I think a no vote is fine, mostly as some way of signaling that these candidates do not represent the will of the majority.
The presidential election in the US is almost always somewhere between 50-60% of eligible voters (probably closer to 55 or less but taking max and min here).
This usually means that you have something around 20ish% of the voting pop for 1 candidate, 20ish% for the other, 3% or less for independent/other.
So the "largest" block in the US, is the "no vote" block. Now you can argue that if you put a gun to their head and forced them to vote they'd pick a side, and that some large % probably has a side they would naturally vote for but are just too busy, lazy, or apathetic to vote for, but I still think it's important to recognize that the largest majority in US politics is the "no vote" The fact it can swing by up to 10% also shows that there's a MAJOR amount of votes up for grabs (as the last 2 elections have shown).
So yes, with that in mind I think that 96/00 had strong signals that they country did not like either candidate and was looking for someone new, and 04/08 showed what that would look like.
Thus I have no voted in some local elections. This is because I find that yes, the parties represent extreme positions with awful combinations of policies that are arguably contradictory, and I don't like supporting that.
Unfortunately that only applies though when you feel that "on average" things will continue. I empathize heavily with those not voting, but have also been a strong voice (probably because I can empathize rather than attack) trying to convince those I know to do so, as now more than ever it's about voting to be allowed to vote in the future for us. And even still I can't say I convinced everyone because I know at the end of the day at least a few people who just did not like either candidate enough to want to vote for them, and while I do finally disagree with that position, it's really on the candidates to earn their vote. Not to fearmonger them into it.
Technically, a vote not cast for them is worth half as much as a vote cast for us, and neither is worth very much. More generally, I wish there was a bit less heat about who personally votes. It’s...
A vote not cast for us is a vote cast for them (interestingly, the opposite of this is never voiced: "a vote not cast for them is a vote for us.")
Technically, a vote not cast for them is worth half as much as a vote cast for us, and neither is worth very much.
More generally, I wish there was a bit less heat about who personally votes. It’s true that it all adds up, but for any given person, the adding-up is mostly other people. In a get-out-the-vote effort, it’s about what happens at scale and we shouldn’t worry about one vote more or less. If someone isn’t interested, you move on.
In this case we’re talking about hypothetical voting, so it’s especially disconnected from any real consequences.
I think this bit is partly misleading, though:
What I'm saying, I guess, is a very simple democratic process. If you want people to vote for you, you have to take them and what they want seriously, and at the very least make concessions to them. If you do not, they probably won't, and you can't blame them
This is true at scale, where politicians try to appeal to as many people as they can. But at a personal level, this sort of thinking is greatly overestimating your influence, a sort of fantasy about having power when you don’t have any to speak of over events. In most elections, you are only one of millions and can’t expect to have any influence on policies, or at least not through voting alone. It’s not a form of personal expression, not like shopping for something that fits you personally. It’s just pushing the Ouija board a tiny bit - worth doing because it does add up, but not worth worrying about if you don’t manage it for some reason.
So I think it’s okay to feel good about voting, but with no expectations.
There is power that comes from being an organized interest group, but to play that game you need to actually organize, and it’s based on how many votes the leader of your group can deliver. Many of us aren’t taking even the first step towards organizing, so we are mostly spectators, talking about politics because it’s interesting. I agree with @NaraVara - we don’t have thr habit of joining things.
Maybe our talk in social media has a bit of influence, but you’d have to have the numbers of an influencer for it to really make a difference. I prefer to forget about that most of the time and just focus on having a decent conversation for its own sake.
I’m curious how you define what a “leftist” is vs a “left-leaning” person or “left-liberal” (paraphrasing your words)? I think I know what you mean, but I want to hear it in your own words. I’m...
I’m curious how you define what a “leftist” is vs a “left-leaning” person or “left-liberal” (paraphrasing your words)? I think I know what you mean, but I want to hear it in your own words.
I’m also curious how you would feel about an “abstain” option in elections ? I have often felt “I don’t want to vote for either person, and I want it documented that I chose not to do it because I felt neither candidate captured my goals/values/needs”. I wonder how things would be if we had a condition such that if enough people abstain, we do not move forward ? I dunno, somehow that metric(abstaining) needs to be measured…
I’m sorry you are suffering so much. It sounds like you like to live by your values in as many ways as possible. I find that admirable and respectable. I hope you continue to do so and stoke the flame from within. It’s difficult to do, and many people are willing to sweep their morals under the carpet or to the side for so little. I, like you, feel sick to my stomach when I’m told to just “vote for the lesser of two evils”, even when they have contributed to and committed genocide…like we should just ignore that as if it is some casual thing to be normalized. I don’t want this to be normalized. I don’t want to have to continue to bite my tongue, because it’s not the right time. If not now, when? I’d like to enjoy my life at some point too, and I’d like to even have it be “normal” or less stressful to where the only thing I care about is the “economy” instead of whether I’m going to be persecuted.
It does feel like it’s always everyone else’s turn, and it’s just never going to be mine either.
Signed- a non-religious, single, non-child having, non-home/land owning, car-hating, American.
I feel for you daywalker, and I hope things get better for us soon…
This is called "spoiling your ballot" in the UK and political parties are very interested in it because it tells them there are people out there willing to go to a polling place, and cast their...
I’m also curious how you would feel about an “abstain” option in elections ? I have often felt “I don’t want to vote for either person, and I want it documented that I chose not to do it because I felt neither candidate captured my goals/values/needs”.
This is called "spoiling your ballot" in the UK and political parties are very interested in it because it tells them there are people out there willing to go to a polling place, and cast their vote for nobody. These are people political parties can try to capture in future elections.
LLM rewording/translation of something I've read some time ago: Maybe OP should clarify their "extreme" position a bit more.
LLM rewording/translation of something I've read some time ago:
So basically there were these three big political movements in Europe, with liberalism kicking things off during the French Revolution. The liberals were mostly rich, educated city folks who were fed up with having no political power despite being wealthier than nobles. They were all about freedom and equality, following ideas from guys like Locke and Smith.
Then you had the conservatives pushing back, with Edmund Burke leading the charge. These were the nobility and church folks who thought the whole idea of equality was nonsense. They believed some people were just born to rule and others to follow - that's just how they thought society should work, based on centuries of tradition.
And while these two groups were duking it out in parliament, everything changed when socialism showed up. The free market wasn't working out great for everyone, and suddenly you had all these workers organizing and demanding their share. It's like the liberals and conservatives were having their fancy debate when a brick flew through the window, and there's this huge crowd outside with red flags - that was socialism making its dramatic entrance.
Socialism came along saying equality was everything, but pointed out that neither liberals nor conservatives were actually delivering it. They looked at the real situation of workers and saw some pretty messed up stuff, like this thing called the Master and Servant Act. It basically made it illegal for workers to change jobs - you could literally go to jail for quitting! Plus, workers had to put in these crazy 12-14 hour days and couldn't form unions.
Then Karl Marx shows up and tells these workers something they're pretty eager to hear: "Hey, see all this wealth around you? You built that with your own hands, but the factory owners are keeping it all for themselves." And he wasn't totally wrong - workers were stuck in this system where they couldn't quit, couldn't organize, and were basically being exploited to make their bosses rich. The factory owners had all these laws on their side to keep workers under control, and socialism was the first movement to really call this out and fight against it.
When you look at the big picture, each of these ideologies is built around one core value: liberals care most about freedom, conservatives are all about natural order, and socialists focus on justice. And honestly, you need all three for a society to work properly - it's just that each group pushes their favorite value harder than the others.
So here's the funny thing about that broken window story - when both the liberals and conservatives looked down at those angry socialists in the street, they had this "oh crap" moment. They realized these people didn't care whether you were liberal or conservative - they'd probably hang them all if they got the chance. So what happened? The liberals and conservatives basically had this "marriage of convenience" to protect themselves.
Now, some hardcore liberals were like, "Wait a minute, aren't we supposed to be all about equality for everyone? We can't just pick and choose!" But most liberals looked at the angry crowd below and thought, "Yeah... maybe let's not give them too much power just yet." So they teamed up with the conservatives instead of sticking to their principles about total equality. It was basically a case of "better the devil you know" - they'd rather work with their old rivals than risk losing everything to the socialists.
So that's when things really split into the left-right divide we know today. A small group of the most radical liberals actually jumped ship and joined the socialists, while most liberals merged with the conservatives on the right. This created what we now think of as the traditional left-right split: socialism on the left, and this liberal-conservative fusion on the right.
So when this split happened, a few radical liberals actually switched sides to join the socialists - not many, but enough to matter. This created our modern left-right divide: socialism clearly on the left, and this somewhat awkward marriage of liberals and conservatives on the right. They could agree on things like protecting private property (which socialists opposed), but that's about where the agreement ended.
Take something like gay rights - liberals would say "live and let live, the government has no business in people's bedrooms." But conservatives would argue that society needs four key institutions - family, community, church, and state - and that accepting homosexuality would threaten the traditional family unit. So while they could agree on economic stuff, they'd clash hard on social and cultural issues.
The problem is, especially in 1990s Czech Republic, nobody really explained this properly. Most people just thought it was liberals versus socialists, with "right-wing" meaning pure liberalism - you know, low taxes, minimal government, pro-business. But that's not the whole right wing at all. Conservatives are actually okay with higher taxes than liberals (though not as high as socialists want), especially if that money goes to supporting traditional institutions like families. It's way more complicated than just "free market versus socialism" like most people think.
Maybe OP should clarify their "extreme" position a bit more.
LLM does it again. While there's little in the way of case studies for whether or not socialism on a mass scale 'works', I'm always reminded of how unproductive a committee of experts can be when...
LLM does it again. While there's little in the way of case studies for whether or not socialism on a mass scale 'works', I'm always reminded of how unproductive a committee of experts can be when designing anything.
If by some rare miracle they are able to build consensus, the product is typically too complicated to action at scale and requires the kind of expertise that most people don't have.
Gross oversimplification, I know, but like those who say that communism didn't work in the USSR because it was corrupted, bad leadership etc, there's an elephant in the room when it comes to that statement.
What if it's beyond our capacity as a species to deliver economic and governance that are that complex? What if the invisible hand of the market -- in its simplicity and unifying nature -- is the only thing that doesn't end in corruption and tyranny?
We depend on the market and we also depend on regulation, both public and private, to have a chance of making reasonable decisions about most of the products we buy. If it’s anything more...
We depend on the market and we also depend on regulation, both public and private, to have a chance of making reasonable decisions about most of the products we buy. If it’s anything more complicated than buying fruit at a fruit stand, you can’t tell by looking at it. (Even then, sometimes you’re trusting labels.)
So let me get this straight. You don't vote at all because none of the parties are 100% absolutely perfectly aligned to your specific views? That seems...problematic. You are letting "perfect" be the enemy of "progress."
If we don't keep things trending leftwards, they get dragged back right. You aren't going to get a 100% perfect leftist option because there isn't enough of a voter base for that to appeal to. We must move in steps. How do you walk 1000 miles? 1 step at a time. We aren't going to go from where we are now to 100% leftist in a single step. It just won't happen.
I think it's easier to view this through the lens of who they won't vote for, rather than who their ideal candidate is. I think it's also an important question to ask yourself, too. At what point would you stop voting for the "lesser of two evils?" Would you vote for Liz Cheney if she were the nominee? Would you vote for Dick Cheney? Everybody has (or should have) their line that they won't cross. OP spoke vaguely, but a lot of people on "the left" have different lines.
I have never in my life not voted. I vote in every election that I am eligible. At every level. Municipal, provincial (I'm Canadian), and federal. I will never not vote because in my opinion, not voting is tantamount to accepting what everyone else wants and not having a voice of my own. Even if that means plugging my nose and voting for the "lesser of two evils" because if I don't help vote for the less evil one, then the greater evil is more likely to win. In my opinion every single vote matters.
My province just had an election. My province is also very right-ward leaning (and I am not). Despite feeling like there was no hope, I went out and voted anyway. Some areas here had candidates that won by only around 100 votes. Every. Vote. Matters.
OP can choose not to cross whatever line they see fit, and not vote, and that's fine if that's their choice. I just fail to see how that helps anyone's cause.
If I'm hearing a Saskatchewanite speaking, I feel ya. I'm one province west and you're well aware of the croney crew we have running things here.
That said, your NDP did very well last election and I'm confident that ours will come out ahead in key battlegrounds with a new leader at the helm.
With the help of social media, the right is having its moment right now. Pragmatic lefty/centrist will return, now's just not the time.
Ya, I hope so. The right definitely doesn't suit me.
I think I would always vote for the lesser of two evils, unless I felt ready to participate in a revolution that would accomplish more than just getting people killed. Unless there's a revolution, one candidate is going to get their way. Why would I ever not vote for the least bad one, no matter how bad it is? If I don't, I'm risking the worse outcome. Accelerationists make more sense to me than principled non-voters.
I read it, and I'm not trying to be dismissive, I'm just not sure what the point of this post is? It's an explanation for how you feel about voting, or not voting as you choose, and I get that, political systems in a lot of countries sucks hard. The parties are wishy-washy liars who are out to exploit us all. I guess I'm just struggling to find a topic of discussion here? Or did you just want to rant?
Yes, I understand. But OP themselves admitted to being a super-niche far-left voter and goes on to explain how when they choose not to vote it's because they feel like the politicians didn't address their specific niche, far-left specifically. It just felt like OP is saying "I'm niche and I know it, but I'm still not being addressed" and being surprised pikachu over it. I don't really know what to say about that?
I get that, I'm a left-leaning person in a very right-wing province of Canada. I totally feel the "not being heard" but I will never ever not vote. I even asked in one of my replies if this was maybe just a rant? Because I feel that. I hate feeling like my side isn't heard. But I'm not making huge posts online about it, I go out and vote for the other side in the hopes of showing the right that the left is still here and still won't vote for them.
Okay I tried reading your post and it's pretty confusing. You seem to be typing "you" when you mean "I" and "I" when you mean "you".
You also write things such as "If you want people to vote for you, you have to take them and what they want seriously".
This should be written as "If they want me to vote for them, they have to take me/us and what I/we want seriously."
You write in a conversational style, which is fine for discussions, but for people reading it (especially in longform) or if English is not their native language it can become a bit jumbled.
After reading your post my takeaway was similar to the above's. It may not be your intention, but that was how I read it as well.
So taking your response to the above to heart, You do not wish to be labeled and being put in a box feels dismissive. That's fair.
Politics in America is zero-sum. It's unfair that nuance and issues can't be more finely distributed but unfortunately if the bitterness of being put into the box during the political season causes you so much distress you decide to stay home you are actively taking part in making the problems you experience worse.
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people in the democratic leadership floundering trying to understand why 15 million people stayed home and your frustrations are valid. If that was the end-goal of staying home in order to force leadership to change then it's possible that this is what occurs.
The common opinion is that the pain of the next four years is not worth the lesson that the die-hards wished to deal out.
Every progressive program and improvement that has been made for our country has been done so via compromise. I'm sorry you felt you weren't being spoken to. We'll see how the country fairs for the next four years and if it was worth it.
Precisely this. Silence does not send a message when it comes to politics. Silence is agreement or apathy. None of what OP typed above is being magically conveyed to politicians when you don't vote.
Only those who are loud send messages. Protests, voting in large numbers, etc. If you want to be heard, be LOUD. Not voting is not loud. Not voting is silent acceptance.
It feels like you are trying not to understand, and also being unkind in your tone. What OP typed above is being conveyed to politicians precisely through not voting for them. You can be sure that 20 million fewer voters communicated a message. In case you are not aware, it was also communicated all year long through very regular massive protests and disruptions. And during the primaries. Being loud failed, and for many resulted in also being beaten and arrested.
It's honestly so rude to come at somebody like that when they are legitimately trying to both process how they are feeling in a public forum, and also explain it thoughtfully. "Not trying to be dismissive" but also "Struggling to find a topic of discussion here", be honest with yourself. You just want to shut the conversation down because you're annoyed. Which is super effective at alienating people and making them feel isolated. Which is what this post is about.
Unfortunately I would bet my left pinky that the message they're actually hearing is that they should have moved further right.
Given that Harris's campaign ignored advice to try and appeal to/fire up liberals rather than court Republicans, I think we're already there. They're already far enough right that they're alienating liberals (not just too-principled leftists) and they're predictably failing to win conservatives over because Republicans are doing a much better job courting people this far to the right. Eventually Dems will have to learn that going further right isn't working or they're going to keep losing elections. If you're running a campaign, you need to be capable of assessing what moves will alienate parts of your base. Leftists for not voting for someone who brought Dick Cheney up on stage to endorse her is extremely expected.
I doubt this will happen unless we see a real change in party leadership with the new guard being much more progressive and willing to go after big business and support labor. Of course, in elections run by money – you can't run effectively if you can't campaign like the other candidate, which is expensive. The high costs of campaigns is a feature, not a bug, for the interests of big business and capitalism in general.
You've got a couple of real progressives, maaaybe leftists, like Bernie and AOC, but of course they sandbagged Bernie in the primaries. AOC came out of nowhere, and I think the establishment Dems have gotten a better lock on the primaries to keep that from happening more.
The rest, speaking broadly, are simply too friendly to business. The podcast Unfucking the Republic made a pretty compelling case that Obama was the most successful Republican president ever. Even the ACA was a Republican blueprint.
I think the real problem is that by enshrining a two party system, we've encoded capitalist and militarist ideals as a default option regardless of party. I'm starting to realize that left vs right is a smoke screen in terms of class, and that if we want to do something about the ultrawealthy running this country, we need something completely different.
They last paragraph above is why @daywalker 's words speak to my own yearning and frustration so well.
The fact that the Democrats just had a President who enacted the most progressive policy platform since LBJ and you people are still saying this shit is exhibit A for why Democrats will move “right” (in your mind) and will be electorally correct to do so.
Tildes is a place for high quality discussion. Your words are rude and combative. I treat people here like they are reasonable people with reasonably held views. I hold empathy for different viewpoints. I expect others to do likewise.
If you would like to engage with my ideas, by all means. But please don't attack me because you don't like what I said.
I don’t think repeating fact-agnostic talking points ad nauseum constitutes “high quality discussion” regardless of tone. Asserting “Democrats have moved right” is false. Full stop.
I've seen people on this very site argue that we should stop trying to protect trans people and other marginalized groups in order to court votes, so you're not that far off.
In the UK what OP is talking about is conveyed to politicians by spoiling your ballot when voting. I don't know whether the same mechanism exists in other countries, but here at least not showing up to be counted is indeed silent acceptance of the status quo.
It exists in the US.
I don't think it really does. It'll vary by state, if anything. Maryland, for instance, does not report a total number of ballots received, just the number of votes tallied in each race. If the total votes tallied in one race exceeds the total votes tallied in another, you can be sure that some people chose not to vote in one of them. You can also vote Write-In and usually be lumped with "Other Write-Ins" which can be construed as a protest vote, but doesn't explicitly mean that. There is no statistic that says "I showed up and dropped a blank ballot in the box because fuck all of you people".
I think silent acceptance is a judgment you're inserting yourself, there hasn't been anything silent about the protests and activism. We have actually been very very loud. We were shown we would not be considered, and our actions would be made prosecutable despite the constitutional right to protest, and that the police are allowed to beat people up without consequence. The message was fall in line, vote for us anyway, because at least we aren't that guy, and if you don't stop we'll hurt you. We showed up to the primaries, we showed up to every rally, and have been screaming at them for a year.
What else would you call it? There's a safe, known, low-effort protest option left on the table, but instead you decide not to keep voicing your opinion. That sounds an awful lot like silently accepting defeat to me.
Edit: for clarity, in the above the "you" in "instead you decide not to keep voicing your opinion" was intended as a hypothetical-you, not specifically Melvincible, and I'm sorry if I came across as unnecessarily aggressive.
So the status quo we're talking about, that we want to change. We voiced to the candidates for an entire year, through every available channel, what we would not vote for. How is that silent? There was nothing on the ballot EXCEPT status quo. How would voting have made sense in that context?
For the record, I did spoil my ballot I just didn't know that had a term, I thought it was the same as not voting. The election being over does not mean any of us are going to stop voicing our opinion, the work doesn't just stop.
I'm saying it's not "every available channel" if you choose to not vote instead of choosing to protest by spoiling your ballot, and that doing so is tantamount to leaving your voice out of the conversation. I'm glad you chose to continue the protest.
For you, why does the conversation not include everything that comes before and after election day?
Because spoiled ballots are literally included in election statistics and other protests aren't.
20 million non-voters will have 20 millions reasons for not voting. It's not as easy as saying "every non-voter is an extreme leftist."
Expecting politicians to hear a message in silence is not going to help anyone's cause.
I think you should reflect on why in none of your replies have you addressed your dismissive tone, or acknowledged any areas where you could be communicating your argument in a way that is less alienating to a person explicitly communicating that they feel unheard.
The "gotcha" style replies in this thread that don't attempt to seek understanding because you're already convinced you're 100% right are incredibly reddit-coded.
Their success at getting the most votes on this post regardless speaks to the validity of OP's feelings and how negative discourse perpetuates online.
I am not being "dismissive," I am confused. It feels like OP doesn't understand how many millions of people that politicians have to cater to.
OP Explicitly states that they hold "wildly unpopular opinions" (middle of the second paragraph) because they are just so far, far, far, left.
Then they state that they want politicians who hear them specifically. Sometimes they choose not to vote because of this. But they themselves admitted to being a small niche portion of the population.
Politicians have to try to strike a balance for literally millions upon millions of people. They aren't going to talk specifically to those small niche pockets of hyper-leftists when there's little chance of that winning them any significant electorate. And if OP's opinions are as "wildly unpopular" as they claim, then voicing those hyper-left opinions to cater to people like OP will actually LOSE them votership.
It SUCKS. It sucks hard. I get it. I hate feeling unheard. I am in the same boat in my province. But we have to work with the systems we have because it's all we have.
Not voting is functionally not voicing a choice.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
I will always vote, and I will always advocate for others to vote.
This line here:
"What I'm saying, I guess, is a very simple democratic process. If you want people to vote for you, you have to take them and what they want seriously, and at the very least make concessions to them."
This states directly that OP is hoping for politicians to voice that they see and are willing to make concessions to them. And insinuates (reading between the lines) that they would be more likely to vote for the candidate who does that.
But again, if OP's opinions are as wildly unpopular as they claim, then that will actively cause the politician doing so to LOSE other votes. Even if it gains them OP's. There is nothing to be gained for the politician to do that.
This is why I am still advocating to ALWAYS vote. Go be heard at protests, write letters, write opinion pieces in media, do all the things, but also vote. If all you do is protest, but don't vote, that's like running only 50% of the marathon. Maintaining a democracy is a marathon, it's not a sprint where a single vote is enough, nor is just going out to protests enough. You have to do ALL the things.
Here in the United States, the Republicans have branded Biden and Harris as the most radical leftist democrat communists this nation has ever seen, in spite of the fact that they have outright milquetoast centrist pro-capitalism policies. Democrats have already lost the votes of most who fear left-wing politics, but since they don't actually take left-wing stances, they also lose the votes and enthusiasm of those in favor of left-wing politics. If the right is just going to lie and lie and lie and lie by claiming that Democrats are these radical leftists anyway, why not try making it true for once?
Oh, if only the world was a simple as "right" vs "left."
It would make things far simpler haha.
I 100% agree. Unfortunately, here in the United States we've built a political system that maintains a very distinct left/right divide. Since we have a winner-takes-all system of geographical representation at basically all levels of government (except for in a couple cities and states which are experimenting with ranked-choice voting in the last few years), there is currently no chance for a third-party candidate to pull things in another direction, because any vote for a third party requires you to choose not to vote for the one of two major party candidates which you could maybe stomach. It's even worse in some D (and I'd assume R) stronghold cities where local elections are basically won during the primary because it's a given that their party will win the general.
It really is a two-team sport right now. But you don't win by playing the best game, just by having the most fans. And the center-left team has been taking their loudest fans for granted and act like they can win by attracting fans from the other team.
How do we reconcile the fact that our political system assumes, and even tries to impose, that the world is as simple as right vs left; when that has no basis in reality?
Like the other commenter I replied to, I am failing to understand where "silence" is coming from. Are you unaware of the protests and everything that leftists and left leaning people did leading up to the election to be heard? Why does none of that count as communication in your mind. What specifically could we all have checked on our presidential ballot that would have clarified our message further? Your statement is painfully oversimplified. The voters Harris lost have not been silent at all, liberals just decided they didn't want to hear it and gambled that we were a small enough group not to matter. We need to be understood to move forward from here, that party will not recover from what they've done if they continue to plug their ears like this.
The silence comes from not voting. If you think Harris is bad for the left, Trump is 100x worse. If you didn't want right-wing, then not voting is not the answer to keeping Trump from steamrolling everything the left has fought for.
I don't want to sound annoying and condescending, but for the tens of thousands of people who marched in the streets, camped out at college campuses, and interrupted numerous Harris campaign events, screaming, "Stop the genocide," what more should they have done?
100k people voted Uncommitted in what was essentially an uncontested primary in Michigan. Between that and the protests, I don't know how much more loud one has to get in order to be taken seriously, especially in a state that Biden won by about 150k.
I also fail to see how not voting and letting Trump get in is helping those causes? It's cutting off your nose to spite your face and being even more aggravated when we're stuck with the fascist dictator who is definitely not going to do what you want or listen to your side.
I work in early childhood education. When it comes to maintaining order in the classroom, the most important thing we do is set limits and follow through on them. It's the exact same thing. What good are your threats if you don't follow through on them?
Also, I can't fault people for thinking their voices might be heard by the Democrats if a Republican is in office. Look at 2017 to 2020. Democrats were all about kids in cages, resist,
defundreform the police, the public option, etc. Kinda the same story in 2008 with the hope, change, universal healthcare, anti-Iraq war ticket that Obama ran on.So maybe the question shouldn't be "why must the left always stick to their principles" but rather, "why don't the Democrats stick to theirs?"
"All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Not voting is not helping.
That quote is probably best used when you apply it to the people who were propping up Joe Biden in 2022.
For the record, I voted. But it didn't really help, either. Looking at the American political landscape, I don't think there's anything that Kamala Harris could have done to deliver the massive systemic changes that the US needs. The infrastructure is just not there for her or anyone that is to the left of the Heritage Foundation. Instead, she maybe would've made marginal improvements in a handful of areas while right wing grievances continued to fester and most likely turn into to big wins in '26 and/or '28.
Personally, I think voting is a lot like going to the dentist. It's important, and there are times where you absolutely must go, but ultimately the most important stuff is done between visits. If you think you can skate by on brushing for 30s a day then wake up the morning of your appointment and floss two times, you're mistaken. That's where "the left" (again, none of us in this thread know for sure who we are talking about), deserves the most criticism. Most of them think they can sit on the sidelines and bitch every couple of years and call it a day. Go to a DSA meeting in a major left-leaning city and its gonna be pretty lonely. Then again, that's how most Americans engage with politics. I know you're Canadian, so forgive me for doing my patriotic duty and keeping this about us.
No worries, I totally understand. Canada is a very close trading partner with the US so your elections actively affect us and we follow your elections closely because of it. No need to apologize for keeping it US-centric.
I 100% agree with you. Action and change is more than just voting day. It's also more than just protests. It is about doing it ALL. Maintaining a democracy takes WORK. Like a lot.
You can't just go out and protest a bunch, and then not vote. You also can't just go vote once and call it a day. You have to work at it, from all angles, all the time. You have to use EVERY avenue available to you. That means doing all of the above. Protests, voting, writing to your elected officials, writing opinion pieces in local media, etc. ALL of it contributes to getting voices out there and heard.
I agree that Kamala was fighting a losing game. She didn't have the ability to make the systemic changes required, nor do I think that alone would have won her the election. Trump catered hard to the crowd who wanted to blame everyone else for their troubles. He's very much stoked the "YOU vs THEM" arguments and it won him the election.
It sucks for Canada because as US is our largest trading partner, Trump's ideas of "America first" are going to screw us over big time.
Yeah, personally, I think the US needs a movement for a proper reform of the political system - the systemic changes that are, imo, needed, are pretty thorough and probably difficult to achieve without such a thing. I don't even know how it'd be possible for such a grassroots movement to start though. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the aftermath of Trump's second term will cause enough ruckus for it to form organically. At least I hope so.
Yeah, I'm from the Netherlands and some of his import policies are going to hurt us, as a trading country, in particular. I can only imagine what it's like for you guys as your only neighbour. Take care man. :|
Thanks, you too!
Can you elaborate on that? Because that’s the real issue here and you don’t seem to really explain. I find it hard to picture a situation where there exists a modern liberal democracy where no candidate was preferable.
Yeah, I actually do expect that from people.
Honestly I don’t think this is a productive avenue for arguing because such engagement with politics is simply uninterested in the things one should be interested in if you believe in liberal democracy.
De Tocqueville talks about how what makes American democracy work is the preponderance of voluntary associations. People go around forming groups and committees to take care of stuff in their communities. Those committees give them day-to-day practice communicating, collaborating, persuading, deliberating, and getting along with people with whom they disagree for mutual benefit and the common good. They’re not there to promote an ideology, they’re there specifically to solve problems.
This experience creates an instinctive, gut level understanding of how stuff gets done democratically that translates to higher levels of government as well. Nobody does this anymore. Very few people participate in organizations and associations. For most people their primary method of engaging with the world outside their immediate control is to buy a commodity or service. This consumer preference model means you approach things like shopping for a car or buying an appliance. You’re not looking for who has judgement, who can be worked with, who works hard. You’re looking for what features they have, what promises are they making, what sorts of tribal signifiers are coming through their advertising that indicates they’re “like me.” You’re not asking “how can I/we create the change we want to see?” you are instead asking “where and how can I acquire the ‘change’ I want?”
If you approach politics with this sort of “consumer preference” framework you’re just gonna be incapable of even having this conversation. It literally doesn’t fit into your model of how the world works or what politics even is. It’s, ironically for leftists, a fully commoditized and market minded approach that’s incompatible with actually achieving leftist outcomes because you’re trying to reduce the commoditization of everything and you can’t do that approaching politics as a commodity. But it’s seductive, and it’s very suited for mass media and advertising. Social media supercharges it because social media makes everyone behave like an advertiser to get attention.
There’s no fixing it through arguing or persuasion. You have to actually teach people how to democracy by making them interact with the world in ways other than buying shit and blasting their opinions out into the ether.
There’s a reason “leftist” governments aren’t democratic. They don’t cultivate this sensibility. They, like right wingers, view everything as a matter of commodity distribution or exchange. It’s a patronage and transactional model of politics rather than a collaborative one. We are fooling ourselves if we think they have values compatible with democracy, which is why they seem more comfortable with authoritarians in power than (lower case) democrats, even if those authoritarians have diametrically opposed social and/or economic policies from them, they’re playing the same game. They’re speaking the same language.
Daywalker,
We in 'the west' live in neoliberal capitalist societies in which the wealth gap is getting larger every year and people die because of poverty while billionaires try to control the public opinion.
We live on a burning planet, just starting to get an idea of how devastating climate change is going to be in the next decades.
We see a rise of fascist ideas in politics. Violence as a political tool is already being normalized again.
I strongly believe: it is not the time to cling to our own ideas and feelings anymore.
Unless the left stops fighting over all the hyperspecific issues that maybe one percent of the public actually cares about, unless we stop calling each other bigots because we disagree over single issues, unless the left unites behind the simple ideas of human rights and economic equality for everybody, we are doomed in a very real sense.
Millions of women in the US will have a very hard time getting proper medical care in the coming years, because people didn't vote for it. This is a fucking reality. People die over this. And it will only get worse in the coming decades.
It is not the time to think "Everybody else gets one, but not me". We need to see the bigger picture or very bad things happen.
We need to unite, worldwide, or we get what we didn't vote for.
This is the core issue i feel too many people aren't seeing. Yes Democrats sold out their country to the capital and I fully understand why leftist wouldn't want to vote for them. But it truly was the lesser of two evils. Voting democrat could have given Americans at least a chance at pushing for more social policies by getting out on the streets and demonstrating for it. Good luck with that in the christo fascist hell that is now to come.
There's always the argument that having a Democrat in power actually makes it less possible to criticize certain horrifying things the US government does, because the "Vote Blue No Matter Who" crowd treats it like team sports. The number of Democrats who started defending the same children in cages on the border they'd decried Trump for as soon as it was their guy in office back in 2020 was really sickening, for instance.
This is one of the most infuriating things about modern politics for me (in the US.) Seeing people change their tune immediately about an issue once they become the ones in power, or just ignore it completely. It's so incredibly frustrating because they give you no room to criticize the hypocrisy without risking being labeled an enemy of the party and ostracized.
Millions of women would still have a hard time getting proper medical care if this election had gone the other way, because the Democrats have time and again failed to pass federal protections for abortion even when they had the power to do so. Women are already dying for this under a Democratic administration. It's not hard to see how one might not see their vote in the presidential election as actually accomplishing anything positive on that front.
On the plus side, several states did pass abortion protection measures this election. A few didn't, but more did. I think voting downballot like this when possible is a lot more useful than voting for Harris in terms of concrete effects on abortion access.
As for discarding issues that only the 1% care about... how many principles should we be discarding, exactly? At what point do a candidate's policies become close enough to those of "the other side" to make not voting for them reasonable? That threshold is going to be different for different people, and I find it difficult to empathize with people who treat caring about vulnerable groups of people who are dying as a result of Harris's policies as something trivial to be brushed aside.
I myself voted for Harris this year, because I thought it was the pragmatic choice. But she certainly did almost everything she could in her campaign to convince me not to.
No, not discarding. When I mention the left should unite behind human rights, that includes all '1% issues' we currently have.
I believe that the left needs to start to address all human beings. Not specifically trans, not lgbt, not minorities, but everybody including trans, lgbt, minorities. The focus has to change.
When young white men are running to the fascists, the left has fucked up. When poor workers unite behind the billionaires the left has fucked up. That can't go on in the future.
The most important issues are climate change and (financial) inequality. If those issues aren't adressed, we all will suffer and die by them. We literally have no future if we keep talking about things that are less important than that.
And the left needs to address everybody to get there, otherwise the fascists will win.
Well...obviously that's not voiced because you would never in a million years vote for "them", so this wording would only be used in internal discussions of how "we" can get voter turnout to be lower on the other side.
Otherwise, I don't really get what your point is (nor that of the other comment discussing your word choice).
Why would you ever expect politicians to pander to you if you admit that you're at the extreme left? You're a niche. They will always choose not to represent you when they could try to represent the largest target possible (swing voters).
If there are 10,000 people like you who have a 50% chance of voting for left and a 50% chance of not voting at all and there are a million people with a 47% chance of voting left and a 53% chance of voting right, why would they pursue you with more than a token effort. If they go really hard for you, they could gain 1000 votes and lose 100,000 or more.
If the calculated decisions to ignore the left to appeal to the right were working, then leftists like OP not voting would be part of those calculated decisions. Why blame leftists for not voting when you yourself are framing the issue as courting leftist votes not being worth it compared to alternatives? If OP's vote is worthless to the Dems, then there's zero reason to criticize them for not voting for them.
There's certainly not zero reason if you think their ethical imperative to vote for one side outweighs their moral imperative not to.
Disappointed by the other replies on this post which so far have done nothing but repeat points back to you that you already addressed, and are also typical of what I'm reading elsewhere on Tildes.
With the caveat that I do use my vote whenever I have the opportunity, I empathise a lot with you, Daywalker. Everybody gets the freedom to honestly express their actual preferences except you. And when you do lend your power to a coalition which actively doesn't want the things you want, you unsurprisingly get nothing for it. If you were an American voting this time, you got less than nothing. And of course, nobody feels it necessary to offer any sympathy to a leftist for this. It's hard not to feel dispirited.
I think there are some counterpoints which do actually take into account what you're saying, but I won't try to make them here.
Voting discourse quality everywhere is at an all time low, understandably due to what just happened in the US this week. It is still a shame to see someone get dismissed and attacked for sharing their opinions (especially when they're being misrepresented.)
I see this happen quite a bit from some specific users on this site and it's frustrating that it has been accepted as the norm. I always try to engage in discussions here in good faith and positively respond to comments. When I reach a point in the discussion where I know it won't end up resolving naturally I usually try to find some common ground with the other user and thank them for their time and counterpoints.
People have gotten too used to the constant
And will go on for hours and sometimes even days at a time responding to the weakest part of the comment while completely missing the forest for the trees. (I have fallen into this trap before too.)
I hope and wish that people would consider that they don't need to insert themselves into every single thread and make their opinion known just for the love of the argument. Sometimes it's ok to let people disagree with you and move on.
It's worse this time I think because there are a lot of people who are terrified because depending on how the next four years goes, it's possible that things will be restructured such that nobody but the most extreme right capitalist conservatives will have any kind of seat at the table for decades to come. That doesn't make pointing fingers any more acceptable but it's understandable that emotions are running hot.
I the early days, there were a lot more left-leaning voices on Tildes. Some of them were very...intense and maybe a little too passionate and thus got hit with the ban hammer (pour one out for alyaza). Others left on their own volition, and many of the reasons were explained in the hundreds of navel-gazing posts that define this little community. But one thing that has been pretty consistent is this little debate that we're all having in this post. If you go back and skim through the posts with 2020 us presidential election tag, you'll see a lot of the same arguments and some of the same usernames. But the overall vibe has been a lot more liberal/centrist since the reddit influx a few years back.
If it helps to some extend... I remember that I had very snappy responses to other people about the internal politics of my country, the Netherlands, even when they discussed in good faith, after we had an election where the far-right PVV won. I can't say for certain whether that's what's going on here too - I can't speak for others and I certainly cannot read minds of others - but it may still be too early, to raw if you will, to have a good discussion with people who are going to be directly influenced by this recent election.
If I may add something here, for people to be alright with change they often need to feel safe with changing. Well, or they need to feel like they current status quo is unsafe and an alternative is safer. So
Is something I agree with, and I do see some good discussion in this thread as well. When I take a step back the impression I get is that it's simply very raw. Add the current context of the middle-east and well, it's not as much as that people like the status-quo, but more of a 'everything-is-raw-and-heated-so-default-feels-safe' kind of scenario. With the US, the two-party system, Electoral College, it's history of two opposing factions and the polarisation that is occurring in many places it's easy to believe one side can protect you from the other.
That is too say, I agree with many of your points. Though I'd take in the context differently into account. That's just my view though, and emotionally people are in so many different places that I may be completely wrong.
Disagreements aside, I appreciate your presence on Tildes. Partially because you're willing to go against the flow of opinion here, but also because you often bring different perspectives on the table. Cheers
Something to take into account is that one side is trying to damage voting in various ways. If you don't vote for the side that isn't doing that, then later, if they do agree to the things you're asking for, you may not be able to vote for them to do it. I recognize that's a lot of hypotheticals, but it's also a scenario that we've seen begin to play out at the state level. Lots of progressive candidates have run in states that already have voter suppression mechanisms in place. I'm not going to say that they would definitely win without those mechanisms, but they might, and any that do would be a great example for future candidates to run on. If you don't vote in one election, you might not be able to vote in the next.
I empathize with you, but I disagree on voting strategy quite a bit. I'm in the US and I'm desperate for true progressive candidates. However, in the US, our system pretty advertantly encourages a two party system instead of a many party system. It's possible for a third party to get a movement going like we saw with Perot in the 90's, but it requires an absurd amount of organization to do that (though possible). Because of this, we essentially have two choices each election. One choice is often, at worst, the status quo, but otherwise usually has options to move us forward over time. The other option is rarely the status quo and frequently sends us backwards. In my mind, if left leaning people are not willing to organize a movement behind a third party progressive candidate, or not willing to sway a democratic candidate to be more progressive in policy, we should all be voting for the candidate that gives us the most progress, especially when the alternative is a literal fascist who wants to take voting away and take away the rights of over half the country if he's allowed to.
In 2024's case, Harris offered first time homebuyer credits, higher taxes for the rich, getting abortion rights back, expanding child tax credits, raising tax on stock buybacks, gun control, a voting rights act, passing the equality act, cap the price of insulin, imposing term limits on the supreme court, raising minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, legalize weed, reviving the federal affordable connectivity program, and more.
The truth is that even if this isn't the perfect platform that a lot of left leaning people want, for example Harris would not be taking steps to get us towards universal healthcare, her platform would have progressed us towards a better future and she is one of the more progressive candidates we've had in the US for president (sad but true). Trump on the other hand wants to walk civil liberties back 150 years, impose tariffs to hurt everyone except the rich, and get rid of voting if he is legally able to.
In my mind, when democracy is actually on the line due to how much trump wants to fuck us up, everyone needed to vote. I know a number of left leaning people stayed home and refused to vote for Harris over whatever issue, but not only is Harris likely better on whatever issue that might be over the alternative, these same people didn't bother to vote in local, state, or senate/congress races either, they just didn't vote at all. I'm inclined to think many of these people just don't give a shit about what happens and are hiding behind a moral high ground of "I didn't vote for Harris because she's not progressive enough with x issue" while we allow trump to win and be worse on x issue. Additionally, many of the abstainers could have organized to vote for a third party that did excite them. In the US, if your party gets over 5% of the popular vote, you secure federal campaign funding for the next election. It can help a ton with picking up momentum, but these stay homers didn't even do that, which is part of the reason I feel that either the number of these people is either really small or it's large, but they don't give a single fuck and would rather just complain online.
I'm not trying to make this sound like an attack or a lecture. I think it's a mindset difference that I can't understand and vice versa. Frankly, I don't understand the act of choosing not to vote at all, it's one of the few times we as a people have a direct and powerful voice to directly change policy and representation, but 30% of our country doesn't use that (enough people where if they banded up, they could nearly get any candidate they wanted into viable contention (of course that 30% aren't all on the same page, but you get my meaning)). I don't understand refusing to vote for a candidate based on an issue where the other candidate is worse. For example, I'm unhappy with what's going on in Palestine, but even if I don't think Harris will solve the problem or even make it better, I know Trump is going to allow the genocide to happen no matter what and possibly accelerate it. I gladly voted Harris this election, not because she closely matches me on every view, but because she was going to give this country genuine progress towards my views, if she were able to enact her plans. That doesn't mean I'm happy with her on every issue, but I was confident voting anyways because I know if I'm not voting for her and if no third parties are viable at the moment, that trump is winning and is making millions of lives worse.
To me, left leaning non-voters seem to be doing a trolley problem. Their options are to pull the lever (vote) for a candidate who is going to overall be better in pretty much every way. That candidate might not be perfect or even good on every issue, but overall represents steady progress in a country that's been slow to progress. If they don't pull the level, a much worse candidate is then allowed to take power, causing suffering for tens of millions or more, but because they didn't pull the lever, they feel they can't be "guilty" for what happens. The way I view it, abstaining is saying that you're okay with the results no matter how they happen. That means you're okay with Trump being in power if he does win, which he did. I don't think left leaning people are okay with Trump being in power, so why did they not then turn up to vote?
I get it, I am also incredibly frustrated with our two party system here. I'm envious of countries that allow you more and better choices. But we don't change this system for the better by sitting around and doing nothing, we change it by voting for as much progress as we can, voting to keep the fascism at bay, and then both pressuring the more progressive party to adopt more progressive policy without alienating their largest voter bases or left leaning people organize to put up a progressive candidate of their own that can then possibly take the reigns from the establishment party. In no case, however, should people sit back and allow fascism to take over.
Secondly, to address the elephant of the room that is Palestine, since it seems that is the #1 issue left leaning non-voters chose to not vote on, at least in online spaces: some view Harris as complicit in the genocide in Palestine. It is true that our current government administration is sending aid and weapons to Israel. It is also true Israel is performing a genocide. It is also true that our current government is not pressuring Israel enough. Some will look at these factors and say that our government is complicit in the genocide. I somewhat disagree, but I think the situation is very complex and I don't agree with the people that think it's a good idea for our country to cold turkey stop aid or to actively work against Israel, I don't agree with the people thinking that our country "just can" end the conflict, and I have some reasons why I think that.
For example, if we stopped sending aid to Israel, I think that would have a few negative consequences not being thought about: we lose a voice at the negotiating table with Netanyahu. Right now, we can at least try to mitigate damage, even if he doesn't listen. If we cut aid, he's not going to listen to a damn word we say. Secondly, this gives Iran a chance to enact a genocide of their own on Israel and while Israel may or may not have the means to currently defend themselves, they would very much have a leg to stand on when arguing that we're allowing an ally to be attacked. This might also piss off a number of Israeli and Jewish voters back home and then we're back to square one of some demographic being mad towards the US about the conflict. Lastly, even if these steps happened, I do not believe that would be enough for the non-voters to go out and vote. They're already not voting for anything, not just abstaining from president. I have little reason to believe they'd go for someone like Harris even if she stopped sending Israel aid. I think these same people would just move on to the next reason why they're staying home.
Like I said earlier, I wish this conflict wasn't going on. I wish the US could find some way to more positively influence the conflict. However, I think a lot of it is out of our control as a country. Even if we have the means to forcefully end the conflict, it can potentially cause further issues. I don't personally think Harris or Biden are complicit in genocide. I think it's true that they could be doing more, but I won't pretend to know what that more is, I'm not an expert on this conflict. Lastly, I think non-voters are not as informed as they think they are and are allowing our democracy to crumble because they can't bring themselves to vote for any candidate, even one that more closely fits their views than we've had an option for in a long time.
I didn't intend for this to be this long, but I did want to get all of my thoughts out on it, since I've had a number of negative feelings towards non-voters this week. I think this election in particular was not the time to be protesting, when the alternative option is literal fascism. In this case, "This is not the time to be having these arguments. It's a time for unity" is actually true, even if this has been a talking point in the past when the consequences are not as dire as this election. Mostly, I'm incredibly disappointed in the millions of people that couldn't even be bothered to vote for local elections, school board, state amendments, state elections, and even congress and senate, or who couldn't be bothered to band together behind a candidate that does represent them, and instead complain online about their choices, complain online about the outcome, and then continue to do absolutely nothing.
While I also wish that the Democrats were more left/progressive, I typically don't feel like I have a choice. I'm living in Europe right now, but visit the US often.
Neither party captures the policy I want to see, but one is significantly further away than the other. And I do think some of the typical arguments do hold weight - I don't feel like I have a choice to abstain and not voting for the left benefits the right, allowing them to strip away my rights. There is a much lower danger of that from the left.
I'm trans, although I transitioned long ago and no one would know, but if they manage to hamper medical transition or revert legal changes, that would be a serious threat to my well-being. Not to mention the thousands of young people who would be impacted. So I do think it's a matter of privilege to feel that you have a choice.
(ETA: I do think though that the hyper specific identity politics are harmful and that many young people today are not trans in the sense that they need medical intervention. Both parties are missing the mark there completely)
I've had this conversation with my American partner many times, and I could never ever consider "not voting" to be an actual option. You're not going to win here. Not you, not the leftist that realises both options in the election will continue to support Israel. Not the leftist that wants high speed rail and universal healthcare. That's simply not on the table. It sucks, but you play the cards you're given.
Voting is like public transit. It's not going to get you to your destination, but you'll take the option that gets you closest. And even if it doesn't by much, I still think it's your democratic duty to move as much in the correct direction as you can.
This basically comes down to whether the USA is a democracy, and the core problem is that it's not, and we need to recognize that.
Go back to 2012: it's FPTP, there are only 2 real choices. It's a democracy. Come 2016, one choice is objectively worse, and dangerous to boot. You only have 1 real choice.
I'm not saying this is good or right, but US democracy effectively ended in 2016. People want a choice, but they don't have any others except the "burn the country down" option.
But I suppose we're actually talking about this, okay then. We have "tactical voting" vs "tactical fascism". Temporary fascism, maybe, but tactical fascism nonetheless. This is accelerationist logic, that sounds uncomfortably similar to what the 1930s German communist party used, where they focused on tearing down the socialist party at the expense of letting Hitler gain power and ultimately making the whole fight moot.
Yes, it's fucked. The US desperately needs real democracy, but ultimately voting Trump is playing Russian roulette. The vote is a referendum on fascism or get-fucked-by-democrats, not a real choice.
Ok I was going to make a separate post about this, and maybe I will, but I have a response to your post which is related.
One reason I've been upset about the election is because so many people voted against their own interests because they are wrong about reality.
When I've asked people why they voted for Trump, or didn't vote, they usually give me a reason that is not tied to reality. Let's say they say something about the price of groceries. Trump is not going to reduce the price of groceries, and things he says he will do will cause harm in the long term and more harm in the longer term.
So it puts pressure on me to try to correct them, and frankly that is quite stressful. In the past, I've known that people are wrong about a lot of things but their wrongness has not harmed me directly. For example, they go to a megachurch and give money to some liar who flies around in a private jet while preaching the opposite of what is in the Bible. That mostly just harms them. When it's politics, I have way more interest in their bad decisions based on lies. I'm sort of able to sway the opinions closer to reality for people I know really well, For others it's just a waste of time and causes a lot of stressful arguments.
In your case, I disagree with you but I think you have a grasp on reality. Of course it's possible with different people who have access to true and correct information to come to different conclusions. You and I disagree on strategies for making society better, but I don't detect that you are just repeating talking points. Except the part about genocide. You will get a lot of pushback about that because there are a ton of bad actors and bots who use that term to try to bothsides politics and possible policy choices by democrats and republicans. One of the top strategies of the right wing is to discourage people from voting. Yes I (somewhat) understand the history of Palestine but voting for Harris was an imperfect harm reduction strategy, especially if you consider the fate of people in Ukraine, American women, damage to the climate, and all the other damage caused by having a mentally ill fascist surrounded by other immoral criminals running the most powerful country in the world.
People are building all sorts of narratives about this without even having the basic facts in order.
Consider that Harris added votes relative to Biden in many swing states — she got 37k more votes than Biden did in Wisconsin for example. She lost because Trump added even more. Same thing for Georgia and NC. MI and PA were very close to 2020 totals, but Trump added 100k more voters in each state.
This election wasn’t lost by disaffected leftists sitting home, where they did do that was largely only in non-swing states where it didn’t matter. Trump was just able to turn out a bunch of low propensity voters.
And I’m not sure why you’re singling out leftists as being uniquely disaffected — I think you’re not really doing a good job of putting yourself in the shoes of other people. There are plenty of people who are also disaffected by the direction of the Republican Party who unfortunately still voted for them for one reason or another.
I'm right there with you OP. Your post's point is proved by some of the unpleasant people who responded doing the exact things, saying the exact things, you describe. They're centrists, or right of you in some way, and would rather blame and shout at you, because they can since the candidate they 'voted' for will never be in a position for them to personally blame and shout at, rather than examine the failing of the failed candidate they chose to vote for as the compromise.
Which really just makes bad worse, for you and any other really upset and unrepresented voter. Crap like what's happening in this thread is exactly why (especially) Lefties feel so detached and isolated with the political climate.
When holding one's nose to vote for a candidate that will only do something you truly want to happen by accident is the only "realistic option" due to things like FPTP and lack of options, and then you see candidates even further Right than that non-option win anyway ... you definitely begin to wonder what's the point.
Which just pisses Centrists off, because they want your vote for their candidate. They don't want to do anything to get your vote, and they will fall all over themselves to primly tell you their candidate just can't do any of those things or risk alienating the Center or the Center-Right, but they still think they deserve your support anyway simply because they're not Far-Right.
They and their candidate aren't Left either (not even close, and their candidate is usually involved in beating back any Left candidates as threats), and won't ever even give lip service to even one Left issue you'd like to see action on, but boy will they light you up for not being one of their safe votes. "How dare you" and "don't you care" and "I thought you had principles" and "help those weaker than you."
They don't care. They just care they didn't win. They don't care to change why they're not winning, they're just angry they didn't win. It's a human reaction, because humans fear change and want to win (or, at the very least, hate losing). So they lash out, and there you go.
Happening in this thread, repeatedly.
I think the political structure that you live under is very different from the one in the US. I will never criticize someone living outside of the US for not voting, as I probably won't have a thorough grasp of the way that their political system functions. I don't think comparing non-voters from the US to anywhere else (or frankly any two places with different electoral systems) really holds. In the US, for President, one of two people is going to win. Unless there's a revolution first, and I haven't been invited to help with any, there are only two possible options. One is saying "I'm gonna let that guy kill thousands of people" and the other one is saying "I'm gonna let him kill double that number, and I'm also going to kill thousands of people myself." If I'm not ready to overthrow the government, and I'm not, I can only influence the situation in one of two ways by voting. Morally, I must vote for the one that will lead to fewer deaths, even if that's far too many. It sounds like your options are between "I'm gonna kill these guys" and "I'm gonna kill these other guys" and "I'm gonna kill some from column A and some from column B" and I can see that being way muddier and less clear cut. That's not the situation in America, though.
It also hurts to see all of the insinuations that I must be a centrist or a liberal or to the right, or that I like the status quo. I am quite far to the left. I would like to see the American government torn down and rebuilt if it could be done without loss of life. But that's not going to happen before January. That's not going to happen before Trump starts hurting people. And the democrats are not going to take this as a sign that they need to move to the left. The protests are good, we have to keep that up. Calling representatives is good. Building local coalitions is good. And I will happily, ecstatically eat my words if this leads to more left leaning platforms in the midterms, let alone the next general, but I will be extremely surprised, and in the mean time a lot of innocent people will have suffered and died.
You've phrased this very eloquently, OP. I'm in complete agreement. I think it's ridiculous how many people are willing to vote for an openly genocidal candidate just because it's not the other openly genocidal candidate.
Maybe it's different when looking from across the pond? But both Kamala and Trump look very similar. They have largely the same policies. I have trouble understanding how so many people in the USA have such a strong split of opinion between right wing candidates 1 and 2.
It's harm reduction. Under Trump the situation is Gaza will almost certainly get worse. He's extremely swayed by flattery from Netanyahu (and others like him) and much of his Christian base literally believes that Jews need to control the Holy Land for their savior to return. Palestinian lives, any number, are a small price to pay for the fulfillment of prophecy. Trump is clearly not a Christian, but he's vulnerable to the flattery of (rich) Christians. He also does not give half a shit about international law or even keeping up a pretense about caring about international law.
Also Trump's immigration plans will, if followed through as described, almost inevitably lead to genocide right there on American soil.
Genocide might seem like the worst thing a government can do, until you realize they could do two genocides. That might sound flip, but it's the situation we're facing now.
This comment is only somewhat connected to your points and from the perspective of a multi-party system (i.e. Germany).
A big problem the left has that the right does not have as much is splintering.
More left-leaning voters tend to have a higher bar for authenticity. If a nominee or party does not do as they preach and are not open for criticism, the voter quickly looks for another party more aligned with their principles, or in your case refuse to support them. Right-leaning voters are more forgiving, as long as the main direction aligns with their beliefs.
This leads to left voters splitting up in smaller parties, while the right clusteres up in fewer but bigger parties (AFD, CDU, SPD).
Look at the green party for example. One of the core principles is the protection of bodily autonomy. They take cases like SA seriously and don't sweep it under the rug.
But recently it came out that one of the key figures that was known for upholding these principles not only knew about a case for years, but actively discouraged the victim from coming forward.
Following this incident (plus some other major issues) lead to a big spike in people leaving the party (mostly young Fundis -> background info at the end), since the party does not seem to uphold the promises they make.
An example from the other side could be a gay politician from the CDU. He lives in a gay relationship, while preaching about the atomic family and how everyone should aspire for it.
Background to the green party:
There are two main currents inside the party - the Fundis and the Realos, with differing ideologies.
The Realos, aka the realists, are leaning more to the middle/right and have either the standpoint that the party should compromise on their ideals to come into power and become a party of the middle, or their ideals align more closely with more right leaning parties.
The Fundis, aka fundamentalists, do not think that coming into power by pandering to beliefs contradicting their own is the right way and refuse to do so.
Realos tend to be older, while Fundis tend to be younger. Currently the Realos are on top, which is also a reason for the mass exodus of mostly young Fundis, who do not feel like they are heard and the party represents them.
Right-leaning voters can be more unified, but I don't think this is always the case. The recent UK election is a good example of splintering the right-wing vote, for example. I think fear of the right-wing vote splintering is actually a pretty big part of why the CDU has been travelling rightwards in response to the AfD as well.
Yeah, I totally get you. I am there myself. Most people wouldn't even consider the socialist stance, they all seem to think about politics along the the liberal-conservative edge of the liberalism-conservatism-socialism triangle, always tough-on-this and lenient-on-that and never consider simply committing to help each other.
I believe it stems from capitalism. People are so used to transactional relationships and zero-sum nature of economic power that they simply fail to see collaboration as an option. Increasingly at the personal level as well, especially as they get squeezed by shortage of money in the real economy and they have to be strict with themselves.
I just hope that at some point people will "wake up". Drugs too expensive? OK, let's build a cooperative to make them cheaply. Doctors too expensive? OK, let's teach ourselves what we can treat safely and build our own facilities for the basic stuff from flu, through physiotherapy to setting bones. Abortion illegal? Cook up misoprostol. Cannot afford books to teach kids? Pirate them or even better, write some free ones.
I mean, as they money slowly drains out to the top, people will still need stuff. Maybe if they make it together, they will learn how to cooperate in the process once again. And if they do, then it's only a small step to build up some local manufacturing again. Maybe an open source tractor. That would be something.
But yeah, I cannot really imagine people abandoning capitalism voluntarily.
The simple transactional nature of it is so, so, so convenient.
How would a system like this prevent snakeoil salesmen and people who are only pretending to have training from hurting people? That sort of thing was rampant prior to government regulation.
These people are still there, peddling snake oil en large and most governments don't really care. Have you heard of homeopathy? Magnet therapy? Cupping? Drinking colloidal silver? Remember how people were peddling supposed guaranteed COVID cures?
I mean the actual reason we don't see it as much anymore is that it's easier to get an actual treatment and most people agree that it usually works decently. I also have this feeling that snake oil was prevalent where/when better treatment was not really known, which is somewhat corroborated by the COVID situation.
If my (pretty dystopic) vision ever comes to be, I guess snake oil salesmen would be seen more often as actual treatment would become less accessible and people more desperate.
It's there, but there are limits. You can't sell arsenic and opium as cough syrup anymore. The answer to cupping and homeopathy is more regulation, not less.
That's because we have organizations like the FDA which mandate drug trials to show that a drug is safe and more effective than placebo.
Otherwise, the drug (or treatment) must state that it is not evaluated by the FDA, if it is allowed to be sold at all.
Don't get me wrong, I think there's plenty of low-hanging fruit for reducing costs via de-professionalization of low-risk needs. Like having nurse-only evaluations of kids during cold/flu season to run tests and check for ear infections to properly gate against overuse of antibiotics.
Untrained people can't be trusted with antibiotics because they'll try to take them for everything. And in doing so, will drastically reduce their effectiveness as more bacteria develop resistance.
I think underlying the post is some nihilism in the two party system. They are both serving capital interests and courting the working class. While one gives pittance too and the other speaks too but actively kneecaps.
There is a need for a labor movement in the United States. Labor is a voting bloc without a party.
I don't want to get heavy into the weeds on this, but I will say that in a healthier political environment, I think a no vote is fine, mostly as some way of signaling that these candidates do not represent the will of the majority.
The presidential election in the US is almost always somewhere between 50-60% of eligible voters (probably closer to 55 or less but taking max and min here).
This usually means that you have something around 20ish% of the voting pop for 1 candidate, 20ish% for the other, 3% or less for independent/other.
So the "largest" block in the US, is the "no vote" block. Now you can argue that if you put a gun to their head and forced them to vote they'd pick a side, and that some large % probably has a side they would naturally vote for but are just too busy, lazy, or apathetic to vote for, but I still think it's important to recognize that the largest majority in US politics is the "no vote" The fact it can swing by up to 10% also shows that there's a MAJOR amount of votes up for grabs (as the last 2 elections have shown).
So yes, with that in mind I think that 96/00 had strong signals that they country did not like either candidate and was looking for someone new, and 04/08 showed what that would look like.
Thus I have no voted in some local elections. This is because I find that yes, the parties represent extreme positions with awful combinations of policies that are arguably contradictory, and I don't like supporting that.
Unfortunately that only applies though when you feel that "on average" things will continue. I empathize heavily with those not voting, but have also been a strong voice (probably because I can empathize rather than attack) trying to convince those I know to do so, as now more than ever it's about voting to be allowed to vote in the future for us. And even still I can't say I convinced everyone because I know at the end of the day at least a few people who just did not like either candidate enough to want to vote for them, and while I do finally disagree with that position, it's really on the candidates to earn their vote. Not to fearmonger them into it.
Technically, a vote not cast for them is worth half as much as a vote cast for us, and neither is worth very much.
More generally, I wish there was a bit less heat about who personally votes. It’s true that it all adds up, but for any given person, the adding-up is mostly other people. In a get-out-the-vote effort, it’s about what happens at scale and we shouldn’t worry about one vote more or less. If someone isn’t interested, you move on.
In this case we’re talking about hypothetical voting, so it’s especially disconnected from any real consequences.
I think this bit is partly misleading, though:
This is true at scale, where politicians try to appeal to as many people as they can. But at a personal level, this sort of thinking is greatly overestimating your influence, a sort of fantasy about having power when you don’t have any to speak of over events. In most elections, you are only one of millions and can’t expect to have any influence on policies, or at least not through voting alone. It’s not a form of personal expression, not like shopping for something that fits you personally. It’s just pushing the Ouija board a tiny bit - worth doing because it does add up, but not worth worrying about if you don’t manage it for some reason.
So I think it’s okay to feel good about voting, but with no expectations.
There is power that comes from being an organized interest group, but to play that game you need to actually organize, and it’s based on how many votes the leader of your group can deliver. Many of us aren’t taking even the first step towards organizing, so we are mostly spectators, talking about politics because it’s interesting. I agree with @NaraVara - we don’t have thr habit of joining things.
Maybe our talk in social media has a bit of influence, but you’d have to have the numbers of an influencer for it to really make a difference. I prefer to forget about that most of the time and just focus on having a decent conversation for its own sake.
I’m curious how you define what a “leftist” is vs a “left-leaning” person or “left-liberal” (paraphrasing your words)? I think I know what you mean, but I want to hear it in your own words.
I’m also curious how you would feel about an “abstain” option in elections ? I have often felt “I don’t want to vote for either person, and I want it documented that I chose not to do it because I felt neither candidate captured my goals/values/needs”. I wonder how things would be if we had a condition such that if enough people abstain, we do not move forward ? I dunno, somehow that metric(abstaining) needs to be measured…
I’m sorry you are suffering so much. It sounds like you like to live by your values in as many ways as possible. I find that admirable and respectable. I hope you continue to do so and stoke the flame from within. It’s difficult to do, and many people are willing to sweep their morals under the carpet or to the side for so little. I, like you, feel sick to my stomach when I’m told to just “vote for the lesser of two evils”, even when they have contributed to and committed genocide…like we should just ignore that as if it is some casual thing to be normalized. I don’t want this to be normalized. I don’t want to have to continue to bite my tongue, because it’s not the right time. If not now, when? I’d like to enjoy my life at some point too, and I’d like to even have it be “normal” or less stressful to where the only thing I care about is the “economy” instead of whether I’m going to be persecuted.
It does feel like it’s always everyone else’s turn, and it’s just never going to be mine either.
Signed- a non-religious, single, non-child having, non-home/land owning, car-hating, American.
I feel for you daywalker, and I hope things get better for us soon…
This is called "spoiling your ballot" in the UK and political parties are very interested in it because it tells them there are people out there willing to go to a polling place, and cast their vote for nobody. These are people political parties can try to capture in future elections.
I mentioned it further up, but the existing mechanism for "abstaining" is intentionally spoiling your ballot.
LLM rewording/translation of something I've read some time ago:
Maybe OP should clarify their "extreme" position a bit more.
LLM does it again. While there's little in the way of case studies for whether or not socialism on a mass scale 'works', I'm always reminded of how unproductive a committee of experts can be when designing anything.
If by some rare miracle they are able to build consensus, the product is typically too complicated to action at scale and requires the kind of expertise that most people don't have.
Gross oversimplification, I know, but like those who say that communism didn't work in the USSR because it was corrupted, bad leadership etc, there's an elephant in the room when it comes to that statement.
What if it's beyond our capacity as a species to deliver economic and governance that are that complex? What if the invisible hand of the market -- in its simplicity and unifying nature -- is the only thing that doesn't end in corruption and tyranny?
We depend on the market and we also depend on regulation, both public and private, to have a chance of making reasonable decisions about most of the products we buy. If it’s anything more complicated than buying fruit at a fruit stand, you can’t tell by looking at it. (Even then, sometimes you’re trusting labels.)