(this is a sarcastic post meant to highlight the absurdity of some of the “greater good” rhetoric we’ve been hearing, especially around leaving vulnerable populations like disabled people behind in case of revolution, basically accelerationism)
(this is a sarcastic post meant to highlight the absurdity of some of the “greater good” rhetoric we’ve been hearing, especially around leaving vulnerable populations like disabled people behind in case of revolution, basically accelerationism)
How’s that been working for you? It looks to me like this attitude brought us Trump. Maybe it’s time the Democrats started demanding better.
I say demanding. Sitting out an election doesn’t count. The system doesn’t change just because you refuse to participate.
I’m really having trouble parsing your suggestion here.
But surely a demand comes with a consequence if not met, right? What is the consequence in an election if not withholding your vote? But you said not to sit it out. Are you arguing in favor of voting 3rd party then? I have to assume that’s your intent, though you didn’t actually say that.
If that is your position, sure, but the problem with voting third party is that, without the mother of all grassroots followings, no third party candidate stands a shadow of a chance. And there was clearly no such popular candidate for president last election. And providing third parties with support is as bad as just not voting if they no chance of winning. It just amounts to not supporting your preferred candidate that does stand a chance.
That is fucked. I know and I agree. But that is the nature of First Past The Post voting and always will be. It’s a lot like the prisoners dilemma. The best possible outcome for you would be to get your most preferred third party candidate, but if you vote for them, and the rest of the voters don’t, you split the vote and end up giving your least preferred candidate an advantage instead. But voting your mosr preferred two-party candidate/popular candidate, or least of two evils as it may well be, comes with some negatives, but is an objectively better outcome.
We need election reform to get rid of FPTP and the two-party system with it. That is no small thing, I know, and there is no quick way to get that done. All we can do is advocate for it, vote for other advocates for it, and hope that eventually it becomes a party platform. But until then, we have to live with the reality and vote strategically. Demand better in so far as you use your voice and your dollars to support better candidates, vote in the primaries for the better candidate, but use your vote on election day with the system we have. Unfortunately, that does sometimes mean voting for a bit of evil to save yourself from a lot of evil.
What got us Trump 2.0 was people refusing to support Kamala. Apathy, protest, contempt, indifference, whatever their reasons, they didn’t show up and give her their votes. A big part of that is her fault for failing to live up to the standards the left expected of her, for failing to excite left wing voters. Those voters were perfectly justified in not being happy about the idea of voting for her, but, ultimately we are worse off because they didn’t. And choosing not to vote at all or to vote third party instead is on them alone.
No, what got us Trump 2.0 was the Democrats running a shitty candidate, on the coattails of another shitty candidate, on the coattails of a shitty presidential run. People were clamoring for a new candidate that actualy gave a shit, and the Democrats told them to sit down and shut up.
The Democrats chose money, war-mongers, and genocide over winning a slam-dunk election. It’s not the voter’s fault that we’re here, as they loudly told the Democrats what they wanted. It’s the Democrat’s fault for ignoring those demands from their base.
Why should people vote for a party that fights against what they want, when they can vote for a third party that is fighting for what they want?