perishthethoughtThe problem with not voting
Agreed, that’s why the strategy of voting uncommitted and/or third party is superior.
I tell our kids to turn in an empty ballot if they don’t want to vote. To at least do that is a minimum.
Counts the same as not voting.
Yeah, that’ll show em.
OtterA little different actually
Not voting at all can mean anything. You like them all, you hate them all, you couldn’t care, etc.
Sending in a blank but signed vote means you cared enough to show up and that you didn’t pick anyone. Those ballots are counted. Over time, if enough of them start to pile up, the existing parties might change things up to cash in on the pile of votes sitting around. New parties may also form if there’s a clearly defined group that isn’t being represented.
I’m not pushing for doing this in any particular election. We have users from all over the world here, voting in many different jurisdictions of elections. A blank vote can be an effective strategy in some situations
In the US it’s just a non-vote. No one counts non-votes. Perhaps you live in a country where they do, but not if you’re an American.
You are talking out of your ass. They know who voted, what party they are affiliated with. They don’t know who voted for who.
I’m in Canada, and I think the term used here is ‘rejected ballots’ or ‘declined ballots’
Some links:
- cbc.ca/…/ontario-votes-2022-declined-ballots-rise…
- www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg…
The first article is specifically the effect I described, where people report the number of declined ballots, interview people who chose to do that, and talk about why it might be happening. That has an impact, but the magnitude depends on how prolific it is.
Second link quoted:
Ballots must be rejected if they were not supplied by an election officer, were improperly marked (including those voided by the elector), were cast for a person other than a candidate, or if there is any writing or mark by which the elector could be identified.
After the count, the election officer fills out a statement of the vote, recording the number of votes in favour of each candidate and the number of rejected ballots. In this statement, the election officer has to account for all ballots received at that poll.
I’m not as familiar with the US. My point was a blank ballot can have a different outcome from not showing up, and it can be a valid strategy depending on where you are in the world.
Declined ballots: How to make your mark on an election when you don't like the options | CBC News
More voters declined their ballot in 2014 than in any other Ontario election since 1975, according to Elections Ontario. That was also the case in Waterloo Region. In 2014, 29,937 ballots were formally declined in the province. Four years later, that number dropped to 22,684.
You’ll have an original thought some day. Not today of course. But some day.
Except it’s a primary where he’s running against himself basically.
That’s the point. It’s a primary, it’s not the general election. They’re showing up and saying “we’re your voters and you know what our message is.”
HopeOfTheGunbladeOh I'm 100% behind handing in a blank or Mickey Mouse or something in the primary. What's upsetting is the people who swear up and down they're going to do it in the general.
Doesn’t help that the US uses first past the post voting instead of ranked choice. You usually have to pick who you hate least, rather than who you like most.
It does not in the slightest help, no. But it is worth noting that even here you can see differences in the parties - one of them keeps trying to strip voting rights from people, put minimal polling places into high density areas, etc.
The problem with voting is that “the most progressive agenda in our lifetime” still doesn’t get us anywhere close to where we need to be to avert catastrophe. While one side might help slow the worst of what is to come, it is still coming.
I still vote, but I’m fully aware that it is just delaying the inevitable.
All of life is delaying the inevitable. Dying is guaranteed with living, all you can do is delay it.
What am idiotic comparison to government.
‘give up on progress, cuz you’re going to die eventually anyway.’
When did I ever say that? Please don't paraphrase me, you aren't very good at it.
If you were going to be honest about it, it's much closer to, "if you want any hope of progress, you have to stay alive in the meanwhile. And if you let an authoritarian government take over, your chances of progress go way, way down."
Anyone repeating Biden has the most progressive anything is either lying or has no idea what they’re talking about.
He’s a milquetoast neoliberal.
But people hate what neoliberals stand for, so they just lie about it. If you call them on it, they just start yelling about how Republicans are worse and insisting comparing them to anyone that’s not a Republican is unamerican
Name a more progressive president. I dare you.
donutsSure, I get you, but I don't know how we even begin to solve that when the US Republican Party have made it their mission to be staunchly antagonistic to anything that the Democrats advocate.
Take climate change policy, for example. One would think that every reputable scientist on Earth saying that our actions over the last few centuries are directly contributing to existentially damaging effects to our environment (on top of a clear and dangerous increase in natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires) would be enough to convince every American that we need to do at least the bare minimum to reduce our impact on the climate. But clearly it's not, so why?
Because the American right (which includes the Republican Party, the right-wing media, and the global billionaire class of oil tycoons and corporate execs that funds them) has decided that they'd rather turn it into yet another issue in the "culture war" that they can use to recruit the stupidest and angriest among us to be their useful idiots.
And it's not just climate change, it's fucking everything. The left supports LGBTQ rights, the right (including people who call themselve libertarians, somehow) are against it. The Democrats want to support Ukraine against Putin's imperialism, the Republicans suddenly love Putin and don't give a fuck what happens to the people that he kills. The entirety of the American right's ideology is anti-"woke", which just happens to mean that they're just blindly against anything that the left happens to be for.
TehdastehdasDid a bug create this duplicate?
Sure, I get you, but I don't know how we even begin to solve that when the US Republican Party have made it their mission to be staunchly antagonistic to anything that the Democrats advocate.
Take climate change policy, for example. One would think that every reputable scientist on Earth saying that our actions over the last few centuries are directly contributing to existentially damaging effects to our environment (on top of a clear and dangerous increase in natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires) would be enough to convince every American that we need to do at least the bare minimum to reduce our impact on the climate. But clearly it's not, so why?
Because the American right (which includes the Republican Party, the right-wing media, and the global billionaire class of oil tycoons and corporate execs that funds them) has decided that they'd rather turn it into yet another issue in the "culture war" that they can use to recruit the stupidest and angriest among us to be their useful idiots.
And it's not just climate change, it's fucking everything. The left supports LGBTQ rights, the right (including people who call themselve libertarians, somehow) are against it. The Democrats want to support Ukraine against Putin's imperialism, the Republicans suddenly love Putin and don't give a fuck what happens to the people that he kills. The entirety of the American right's ideology is anti-"woke", which just happens to mean that they're just blindly against anything that the left happens to be for.
Did a bug create this duplicate?
Yeah. Sorry about that. I think Kbin was lagging the hell out when I posted originally, I don't know how that resulted in 3 posts but it wasn't my intention. lol shrug
Sure, I get you, but I don't know how we even begin to solve that when the US Republican Party have made it their mission to be staunchly antagonistic to anything that the Democrats advocate.
Take climate change policy, for example. One would think that every reputable scientist on Earth saying that our actions over the last few centuries are directly contributing to existentially damaging effects to our environment (on top of a clear and dangerous increase in natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires) would be enough to convince every American that we need to do at least the bare minimum to reduce our impact on the climate. But clearly it's not, so why?
Because the American right (which includes the Republican Party, the right-wing media, and the global billionaire class of oil tycoons and corporate execs that funds them) has decided that they'd rather turn it into yet another issue in the "culture war" that they can use to recruit the stupidest and angriest among us to be their useful idiots.
And it's not just climate change, it's fucking everything. The left supports LGBTQ rights, the right (including people who call themselve libertarians, somehow) are against it. The Democrats want to support Ukraine against Putin's imperialism, the Republicans suddenly love Putin and don't give a fuck what happens to the people that he kills. The entirety of the American right's ideology is anti-"woke", which just happens to mean that they're just blindly against anything that the left happens to be for.
Do you voting for third party local and build that structure from the ground up. THAT will scare them.
Do you voting for third party local and build that structure from the ground up. THAT will scare them.
eksbIt scared New York Democrats enough to pass new rules to restrict 3rd party ballot access. They got sued and SCOTUS refused the case.
If Democrats want people to stop saying “both sides are the same”, they should stop giving people so much evidence.
I’m a decently large Biden stan and I support this. Stop going 3rd party in the fucking presidential race, it’s counter productive. Build a party from grass roots, it’s the only way. If we had a decent local socialist party I’d support them.
But also note I’m in a democratic stronghold. If your local gov is deep purple, your best bet is still democrat.
Of course they downvote you. They don’t care about progressive policy. They’re Russian and GOP trolls trying to destabilize the election.
It work in both ways
That is only true in the undemocratic 2 party system of the US.
In places where they actually have multiple parties, say 10 or so at least. It is hard to not find a party that you like more than the others.
So if someone doesn’t vote, it means none of the parties are good enough. Otherwise they would vote blank. And if too many people do not vote, it sends a clear signal to the government that they need to change something fast in order to prevent an uprising.
There it’s indistinguishable from being uninterested in politics. And politicians have no incentives to cater to those that seem unlikely to vote. Null and blank votes are better at showing disaproval of the system, and at making politicians rethink their strategies
Semi-Hemi-DemigodI was gonna mention this: You don’t have to vote for anyone, and you can just lie after you leave the ballot blank.
We need ranked choice voting. First past the post virtually guarantees a two party system.
Ranked choice voting is just a primary with fewer steps. Caucuses are already essentially ranked choice.
Ranked choice gives you the most moderate candidate and weeds out the others. Or, gives you the most charismatic demagogue. Notably, Joe Biden and Donald Trump check those boxes.
Ranked choice voting is just a primary with fewer steps
This is wrong. It is a multi-stage runoff election with fewer steps (hence why it's called "instant runoff"), and that's a good thing because it means that people are much less likely to invalidate their ballot by voting for a first-preference candidate with no chance of winning.
Ranked choice gives you the most moderate candidate and weeds out the others
Ranked Choice Voting gives you, more often than not, the most broadly popular candidate. Which is what you should want if you believe in democracy or the concept of a republic.
I feel like this should go without saying, but the goal of democratic reform is not to put the person you like in power, it's to put the people back in power.
If the most popular candidate happens to be too "moderate" for your tastes, then it's up to you to advocate for your positions in a way that will change hearts and minds in order to get more people on your side. If you can't do that, then you really have no business winning a truly democratic election, right?
DeceptichumJust don’t go with the mistake we have in Australia where your vote has to transfer.
At the end of the day we effectively have a two party system, because eventually any minor party will funnel their votes towards the two large and near identical NeoLib parties.
So all left votes go to Labor and all right votes go to Liberal, as such Labor don’t give a shit about leftist voters and instead try to poach right wing Lib voters because they know there’s zero chance the left will ever preference Lib so they can’t lose them.
We need STAR voting more. Ranked choice voting is only marginally better than first past the post.
Could you explain star?
Sure! It’s also called approval voting. But the key is it’s called STAR: score then automatic runoff. You rank any of the candidates from 0 to 5. If you don’t rank them, it’s a 0. Then you total all the scores and the highest score wins.
More info here: www.starvoting.org
The cool thing about STAR is that I can rank some people a 1 saying “they’re better than nothing!” While voting for my favorites with 5’s. The highest score wins, so the most approved by most people wins.
That is only true in the undemocratic 2 party system of the US.
I think that’s pretty clearly who this post was targeted at.
To be fair, coming from one of those places, I do not want to vote either. The socialists party is crony as shit with multiple corruptions affair, and the only other options are the liberals. Guess I’ll vote far-left, but I don’t really like them either for they are statists.
Its funny bc people from usa thinks this is smart
If you can, please go vote. You give the vote up to the person you like the least if you don’t show up. I know this election sucks and the candidates aren’t the best. But is there someone you absolutely don’t want in office no matter what? I have one in mind and you better believe I’m showing up to vote for the only guy who can have a chance to keep him away. These other third party guys have no chance, like always. If you don’t show up to vote or vote third party as a throwaway, then don’t complain for the next four years.
These other third party guys have no chance, like always.
Also they aren’t serious candidates. You can tell because they just crawl out of the woodwork for presidential elections and cause problems. They don’t run for any offices further down the hierarchy and demonstrate that they have good ideas and build up public trust enough to merit their beginning president. They just go on vanity tours and fuck around the serious candidates who are willing to put in the work.
DessertStormsNo, the problem isn't voting, it's only voting, a distinction those of you who are dedicated to doing the latter refuse to acknowledge.
It is people who look at the system and think that a tick in a box once every four years can or ever will change that system who are the ones who need to be rethinking their strategy. 🙄
Nobody refuses to acknowledge this. It comes up in every single one of these goddamn threads.
There are just too many people who are a little bit lazy and think this gives them an excuse not to show up at all. A way to feel self-justified about it: well both sides are bad, so I’ll go jack off some more. Downballot? I don’t know what that is because I’ve never seen a ballot. Because I do this every election.
This is true, and just another way our system is broken beyond repair.
I’m really not sure this is true, since it’s basically all people talk about right now
Is there a good reason for NOT voting?
See new videos before anyone else, and extra stuff like outtakes and deleted scenes PATREON: http://www.patreon.com/jayforemanWEBSITE: http://www.jayforeman....
The only thing worse than not voting is voting for a third party.
Patapon EnjoyerUuuh, you know that Kang and Kodos both want to enslave humanity and that’s the point of the episode right 🤨
I do. I thought including a Simpsons gif to accompany an otherwise bombastic and outlandish statement would be sufficient to communicate my sarcasm. Alas, I regret not including a /s.
counter-point: Voting for someone that does not represent you because you are more scared of the other guy is indistinguishable, as a signal, from someone that fully supports them. By voting against your own interests you are actively undermining the democratic process.
That’s not a counterpoint, that’s just pointing out that both aren’t good signals. The main difference is that not voting or voting third party makes it more likely that the guy you yourself admit you’re more scared of more likely to win.
That’s not how democracy works, like at all
Democracy is about compromise. By definition. Not about demanding exactly what you want and sabotaging the system if you don’t get it. That’s the opposite of democracy.
You know I kind of question that. I think democracy is more about rich people controlling the mechanisms through which everyone votes in order to sort of fool the masses into believing that whatever the oligarchs decide they want, is what they must’ve wanted, while simultaneously also being a good way for the rich to kind of gauge public interests through a periodic census and more easily manipulate them.
No, but I kid. Mostly. I think, democracy, more, in it’s pure forms, is less maybe about compromise, and more about a kind of assumption that the majority of people are reasonable, and can be reasoned with, which I think is kind of a foundational assumption you need to make if you want any non-authoritarian form of society. Which isn’t to really say that democracy can’t be authoritarian, or employ authoritarian methods, because it can.
Most people don’t believe we should get rid of all guns, or that we should be able to freely own machine guns, or even lots of regular guns. A functioning democracy would end up having some level of background checks, and mental health checks, and general procedures that you would have to go through (probably involving hands-on training classes and certifications), in order to own a gun. If you poll people, with a good poll, rather than a stupid binary dynamic single choice poll, you’ll find that’s what most people want. From what I’ve seen, the same is true for abortion, and I haven’t seen the public sentiment on drugs, but I’d imagine most people probably would like most hard drugs to remain more illegal, or harder to access, than most “soft drugs”. You can find this across most different things you’d poll people on. Healthcare, other forms of public infrastructure, including civic infrastructure, military funding, space research, every aspect of government.
This isn’t to necessarily say that most people are moderates, but I think a very underrated aspect of democracy is the fact that people can choose not to vote if they feel like they’re not informed enough on a concept, which will naturally select, if done correctly, for people who are more knowledgeable on a subject. Even the general public is capable of giving you a somewhat nuanced answer on many different political topics, that kind of breaks through two-party dynamics, and might even break through what are thought to be general consistent ideological positions.
None of this is to say that democracy isn’t also about some level of compromise, but I think it’s also up to the reasonable participants of a democracy to decide their level of compromise, what they’re willing to accept and what they’re not okay with. I think, you know, if your democracy was more on the side of my initial, joking answer, than on the side of all of what I’ve laid out, it would be kind of a shame were the whole system NOT sabotaged and taken down. In my view, at least. And, you know, providing something worse didn’t sprout up in it’s place.
I think it’s pretty much a given that something worse would sprout up in its place.
But I do agree that an educated voting base is critical to functioning democracy. That’s why I think the long term solution to our current fascism problem is education, a front we’re failing miserably on
PREACH!
What if I don’t want to compromise with fascists?