this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
-205 points (25.8% liked)

Pleasant Politics

215 readers
177 users here now

Politics without the jerks.

This community is watched over by a ruthless robot moderator to keep out bad actors. I don't know if it will work. Read !santabot@slrpnk.net for a full explanation. The short version is don't be a net negative to the community and you can post here.

Rules

Post political news, your own opinions, or discussion. Anything goes.

All posts must follow the slrpnk sitewide rules.

No personal attacks, no bigotry, no spam. Those will get a manual temporary ban.

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
auk
santa
-205
Dislike both candidates? Thinking of sitting this election out? Consider this... (www.lgbtqnation.com)
submitted 2 months ago by auk to c/pleasantpolitics
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I sat out the 1972 election between Nixon and Humphrey. Many sat out 2000 and 2016 elections. Here are the consequences.

all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 49 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Elections have consequences. The only thing you prove by not voting is that your opinion doesn't matter, and future campaigns will remember that signal from you not showing up and further de-prioritize your concerns.

This is a big reason that millennials were ignored as a voting block for so long--because it was safe to assume most of them don't vote anyway. When you vote, you make them start considering your opinion.

[–] nobody158@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago

This goes even more for local and primary elections. Those votes count to move the needle of opinion on what they should focus on to get your vote.

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Pfft 41% of voters were below 50 last election. They ignored millenials for so long because every sector was. Boomers don't have the ability to hand power to the next generation, raise the next generation to handle responsibilities, or pass on the knowledge to handle things when they are gone.

Boomers raised kids like pets, offered no assistance to begin careers or families, and offered little actionable advice. They received assistance from their parents and grandparents in these ways. But then forgot they received help and were supposed to help future generations after them. They still complain about those "millenial kids" because they forget that time passes and the youngest millenial is over 30 now.

[–] auk 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You found another bug in throwaway account detection! I've undeleted this comment and, hopefully, fixed the new one too. Sorry about that.

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 1 points 2 months ago

Huzzah!

[–] atearinspace 25 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I’m a long time 3rd party voter, starting from when I could first vote in the late 90’s. I voted Green in 2016 and it weighs heavily on me right now. As awful as the Clintons are, we have had some real terrible consequences since then. Real people are hurting more because of Trump getting into office.

I still believe that the electoral system needs real change. I still think that the Democrats haven’t done much to help the working class. I’d still rather see all hierarchies flattened and power come from the bottom up. Unfortunately, voting outside of our shitty two party system does nothing to help this.

If we want real change we’re going to have to make it happen. Not with pulling the levers of the state, but with real organizing, mutual aid, and dual power. However, that doesn’t mean pulling the levers of the state isn’t harm reduction. We (I) could have reduced a lot of harm since 2016 if we would have just pulled those levers. It doesn’t take much time to do it, so just do it.

[–] auk 8 points 2 months ago

This comment was deleted, but it shouldn't have been. The code to aggressively delete comments from users who don't have enough data to rank them, meaning potentially throwaway accounts, was malfunctioning, and deleted everything from any accounts without recent activity. It's only supposed to trigger if that user has some downvotes, but it was deleting anything.

I've fixed the code and restored the comment.

[–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Thank you for this comment. The work we need to do in order to effect change extends far beyond the ballot box, but strategic thinking at the ballot box is an extremely important step.

Voting dem in 2024, to me, is a lot like tying a tourniquet on someone with a gaping wound. You sure wish you weren't in a position where you had to do it, and the work isn't over once it's been tied, but it's a hell of a lot better than saying "I don't believe in tourniquets" and letting the person bleed out. Sorry, I know that's not the best analogy, but I'm too exhausted to workshop it anymore at this point.

Also, thank you @auk@slrpnk.net for fixing up the code and deletion issue.

[–] houseofleft 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think that's a really strong argument for voting with choice you have, not the one you should have.

It makes me sad to hear you say voting Greens "weighs heavy" on you though! Democracy often isn't as strong as it should be, and people are forced between supporting candidates they dislike, or accepting their vote won't count, but that isn't your fault!

This article is a really good think piece on how to vote. But if people choose to vote for neither of the two major candidates, I really hope nodody feels bad about it. The system sucks, not the voters!

[–] atearinspace 4 points 2 months ago

I think that’s a really strong argument for voting with choice you have, not the one you should have.

Not too long ago I would have agreed with you. At this point though, I have come to the realization that the 2 party state can't be beat simply by a small percentage of people voting with their conscience. As noble as it is, we just can't win that way. It's going to take some real organization to win the privilege of being able to vote with our conscience and having a real chance to make change. We are going to have to change the system by doing more than just voting for a 3rd party.

It makes me sad to hear you say voting Greens “weighs heavy” on you though! Democracy often isn’t as strong as it should be, and people are forced between supporting candidates they dislike, or accepting their vote won’t count, but that isn’t your fault!

I may be being too hard on myself and I appreciate your perspective here. We really are stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to elections and "democracy" in this country. The consequences are real, though. When I see that many women now have to travel to other states to get an abortion or be forced to have a child they didn't want it's hard to not feel some responsibility. I don't want to wallow in it, though. I want to help bring about some real change. To me, that means doing what I can to do some harm reduction come election time, but then organizing beyond that to make something better. Continuing on our current path is just not sustainable.

[–] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Looking back now, I realize that in 1968 at the age of 21, I was functioning on a dualistic or binary cognitive developmental level. I perceived the world, people, and events as either “good” or “bad,” and I saw pragmatism as a form of “surrender.” Viewing both Humphrey and Nixon as “bad,” I could not honestly vote for either without surrendering my ideals and ethical standards.

Using this event as a constant touchstone in my personal history, I now understand the cosmos more in its multiplicity, its nuance, along a continuum rather than as a binary. I also often consider pragmatism not so much as surrender, but more as compromise and as a necessary give and take in a democracy.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

For example, I disagree with Harris who does not advocate for a single-payer health system and who will continue the practice of fracking, which I oppose. But I am voting for the Harris-Walz ticket because I trust them, and I know they will model a positive force for our nation and nations throughout the world.

And I agree with Kamala that “We are not going back!”  

My thoughts exactly- she's not as liberal as I'd like, but I'll be damned if I'm sitting this one out. She's going to be great, and has my vote. I don't want to go back to a shithole presidency anyways. I want our country to be a leader and look forward.

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 3 points 2 months ago

I dislike both, but am still voting. In first-past-the-post, I end up voting against the worst choice in the presidential election which means I must choose the other candidate that has a chance of winning. I hate that it's this way, but neither not voting nor voting for a third party in this presidential election will change that. I can't wait until we have actual ranked-choice/star/etc. voting and get rid of FPTP. I do vote for the most progressive candidates regardless of affiliation in local elections but, well, it's a rural red-state district so that's unfortunately not a high bar (and I live overseas so the amount I can be directly involved in anything is quite limited).

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I'd rather we stage a revolution and do away with the current electoral system in favor of one that allows more than two viable parties.

But, yeah, if you actually care about the outcome, but can't find someone to vote for, there's still a point in voting against the worst case.

Also, I believe that not caring about the outcome is a valid stance. If you genuinely don't have any interest in it, don't have a firm opinion about the candidates, or whatever, it's fine to not vote. You'd essentially be flipping a coin anyway, so let the folks that care have their say instead.

It's also fine to abstain as protest if you really want to, though I'd still say that voting against the candidates least aligned with your conscience would be a better overall move towards the outcome you'd actually prefer. Incremental change is still change, no matter how small the increments.

[–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I would argue that not voting is ultimately the epitome of selfishness and a sign of unacknowledged privilege. Sure, you may be fine either way and the outcome may not matter to you, but I can guarantee it matters to other people in your life.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

So, they're supposed to vote for who?

You do realize there are people that genuinely don't care about presidential elections at all. They have no interest in politics, they just go about their lives and ignore anything like that.

Are they supposed to just flip that coin? I've known people that that is exactly how they would decide who to vote for if voting was mandatory. That seems a lot worse than abstaining.

Or are they supposed to vote for who they're told to vote for? Who are they supposed to listen to?

Privilege or not, there are people like that, and I frankly would rather them stay home than risk them voting "for the joke of it". And there were people that voted for trump for exactly that reason. They thought it would be hilarious.

That kind of person? If them not voting is selfish, I'm okay with that.

[–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

“You do realize there are people that genuinely don't care about presidential elections at all. They have no interest in politics, they just go about their lives and ignore anything like that.“

And that’s exactly the kind of privilege I am talking about. If you have women in your life, than this election matters. Do you have people of color in your life? Than this election matters. LGBTQIA+? Economically disadvantaged? People with a life expectancy of more than 10 more years? Than this election matters.

Just because they don’t have an interest in politics doesn’t protect them from having culpability for what happens.

As for who they vote for, that’s on them. Pretty sure reading for like 15mins would indicate to most people how they should vote according to their own beliefs.

Democracy is never better for not having had the participation of as many as possible. Indeed, democracies biggest failures are always the result of too few taking part.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We're kinda talking at cross purposes here.

I agree with you that the current goal has to be stopping the erosion of human and civil rights. It's more important in general, and to me personally, than my long term preferences regarding our government. I could wish it were otherwise, but as my mamaw used to say, if you wish in one hand and shit in the other, you'll only have to wash one of them.

I think every election matters, not just presidential ones. Every election is a chance at change for whatever the person thinks is better.

I just don't agree that voting should be mandatory, nor that everyone voting is better. An engaged, educated, and egalitarian population, I would absolutely want everyone voting. But we don't have that. For me, if a person isn't actually voting their conscience, and/or isn't willing to read for fifteen minutes, it's no better than rolling dice.

I don't particularly care if they're staying out of it from privilege, from apathy, from opposition to the system. It's their choice.

Besides, not voting is voting. It's saying "you guys decide". A non voter is voting for other people to handle things. That's a valid choice.

[–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think we’re talking at cross purposes. I think we just disagree on whether disengagement is a “valid” choice.

“I just don't agree that voting should be mandatory, nor that everyone voting is better. An engaged, educated, and egalitarian population“

Very Jeffersonian of you, but Jefferson was kind of a piece of shit when it came to anyone who wasn’t a property owning white man.

Twenty-one countries have compulsory voting. It’s not only doable, it’s not even hard. And it stops people from being able to claim distance from the act of self-governance that’s at the heart of democracy.

In the US in particular we’ve been brainwashed for almost a century that discussing politics is taboo, that being interested in politics is weird, and that not being involved is somehow some form of enlightened centerism. The only people that benefits are the people who can take advantage when most eligible people don’t cast ballots.

“Besides, not voting is voting. It's saying "you guys decide". A non voter is voting for other people to handle things. That's a valid choice.”

And this is the big lie. You can submit a blank ballot or a “None of the above” in those places that require voting for those wishing to take some stance on principle. Not casting a ballot isn’t a choice, and it’s not saying other people should decide how to handle things. It’s saying either I’m so privileged that I can’t be bothered or I’m too lazy to bother to do the one thing our country asks of every adult. And more than anything it increases the distance between the government and the governed, which leads to the delegitimization of the government.

Every time I hear someone say they don’t believe in as many people as possible participating in democracy, what I’m actually hearing is they don’t believe in democracy.

[–] Aninjanameddaryll@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Very Jeffersonian of you, but Jefferson was kind of a piece of shit when it came to anyone who wasn’t a property owning white man.

Is this really pleasant? Back handed insults are still insults.

Isn't the point of this place to first be decent to each other?

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago

If someone doesn't care and doesn't notice, they are acting on their privilege.

[–] HereticalDoughnut@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

Maybe people should vote because that’s a good civic responsibility. When we leave voting to the older generations that vote in larger numbers we end up with candidates that cater to their needs first.

The US should have compulsory voting IMO.

[–] auk 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I’d rather we stage a revolution and do away with the current electoral system in favor of one that allows more than two viable parties.

These are in no way incompatible. Not electing Trump will do a huge amount to protect the people who are working on revolution doing away with the current system.

Also, I believe that not caring about the outcome is a valid stance. If you genuinely don’t have any interest in it, don’t have a firm opinion about the candidates, or whatever, it’s fine to not vote. You’d essentially be flipping a coin anyway, so let the folks that care have their say instead.

If you don't care about the outcome of Harris versus Trump, then you're either not aware of what's going on, or in a position of extreme privilege. You're not a Haitian, or a Hispanic, or God help you an undocumented immigrant, or a left-wing person living in a Trump-supporting area, or anyone who's near the poverty line, or any other number of categories of people that Trump is going to do incredible levels of harm to.

You also don't live on Earth, or else you're going to die with no descendants before the most serious impacts of climate change start to come to fruition.

If you want to improve the current system, "abstaining as a protest" is selling a huge number of helpless and vulnerable people to suffer or die, for no particular benefit to anybody. That's the point of this article.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah, I said that incremental change is still an important thing, even if someone isn't actually supporting democrats. They might not achieve their goals in that election, but you get a chain of increasingly aligned presidents and senators, it achieves the same goal eventually. Or did my comment not post right? I'll check and make sure, then edit this if it didn't.

As far as someone that doesn't care being privileged, sure, whatever, that's one possibility. But, as I said in response to another comment, if they're in that state of privilege, why would we want them to vote? Are you assuming they'll vote the way you and I prefer? I'm not. Again, I'm repeating myself, but there are people that voted for trump the first time because they thought it was funny.

Humans are not exactly the smartest thing in the universe. We're prone to narcissism, apathy, and outright malice. If someone that's like that wants to stay home, I'm glad. I don't want some chowderhead twit voting for the laugh of it. I don't want people voting by flipping a coin. I don't want people deciding to vote against sanity just because they're contrarian jerks they get tired of being told they have to vote, and have to vote one particular way.

And you can't guarantee protest voters would vote the way you want. I know too many of them, I can promise you that just because they're left wing doesn't mean they'd vote democrat. Judge that as you will, but I'll be glad if they stay home.

I may be voting for what I see as the lesser evil, but I'm also going to be voting sane, and effectively.

[–] Aninjanameddaryll@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Dang.

I just ran across this community, and I'm disappointed.

This comment is straightforward, on topic, and pleasant, but is sitting here in the negative.

Looks like the point of the place is being ignored.

[–] auk 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This comment was deleted, but it shouldn't have been. The code to aggressively delete comments from users who don't have enough data to rank them, meaning potentially throwaway accounts, was malfunctioning, and deleted everything from any accounts without recent activity. It's only supposed to trigger if that user has some downvotes, but it was deleting anything.

I've fixed the code and restored the comment.

And yes, I'm aware of the irony involved. To answer your point, I picked a terrible name for this community. People are not required to upvote you or agree with you, or even be nice to you. It's meant as a place without toxic low-effort trolling, but certainly people are allowed to hit the downvote button to quickly express disapproval in addition to giving some more well-considered reasons for disagreeing with the stated argument.

What I was going for, unsuccessfully, by saying "pleasant" was that this person can say something like this viewpoint, and other people can disagree with them, but it doesn't turn into a dumpster fire of personal insults, changes of subject, and wild accusations. At that, I think it's succeeding, looking at this thread. People are not agreeing but it's a lot calmer than an equivalent thread in a lot of Lemmy's politics communities would be.

[–] Aninjanameddaryll@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 months ago

Ah, I see. Makes a kind of sense as to why there's less nasty insults, but still insults. In that regard, maybe the name is a benefit. If people think civility is mandatory, they'll think a bit more before slinging mud, or at least do so subtly.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Eh, I don't sweat votes most of the time, but I agree with you. It shouldn't be a dislike/disagree button at all on a C/ like this. Defeats the entire purpose.

It's nothing I'd complain about for myself, but it would be offputting to anyone that does care about votes, or just wants to have varied discussions in a grossly friendly environment without getting buried by being disagreed with.