Asklemmy

to put pressure on the US government with regards to the situation in the Middle East

She's campaigning on building the wall. she's endorsed by dick cheney and 200+ reagan and Bush admin staffers. we have sent more aid to Israel in the past year than we ever have since Israel was invented. she has stated that her support of Israel is iron-clad. the current admin has broken records for the amount of oil and gas extracted extracted in the past 4 years. she has refused to voice support for the trans people who are supposedly going to be protected by her admin. she has kicked Palestinian people out of her campaign events, while instead parading around Richie Torres, a person who famously has stated multiple times that Palestinians deserve their eradication. her policy page has removed all mentions of medicare for all and paths to citizenship. she has promised to make america's military the most lethal fighting force in the world.

she has decided that the "moderate conservative" who will never vote for her is more important than all the progressives and leftists who probably would've. just like Hillary Clinton and Dale Earnhardt, she's going to crash into a wall because she can't turn left.

I feel like you have to understand the circumstances of those affected most by this genocide to understand. It's easy to be logical and vote Harris as she is the least worse option, but that's harder to do when directly affected. I consider the blame to be entirely on the Democratic Administration and Harris' Campaign Strategy. They have had every opportunity to change course, and them deciding not to may very well cost them the election. I will not blame anti-genocide voters, especially those who are directly affected and have lost loved ones.

I'm still voting for Harris, on the basis that change from public pressure is far more unlikely under Trump.

The rhetoric coming out of the White House, when it has been focused on peace or restraint, rather than continuous war, has been undercut at every turn by its actions. The constant supply of weapons — $17.9 billion of bullets, bombs, shells, and other military aid in the past year — has allowed Israel to keep waging its war on Gaza, and in recent weeks, expand that war to Lebanon and threaten to escalate its conflict with Iran. Despite documentation of U.S. weapons being used in probable war crimes, and credible allegations that Israel is committing genocide in its war on Gaza, the bombs have continued to flow.

https://theintercept.com/2024/10/09/white-house-oct-7-israel-war-gaza/

Here you can track the rhetoric and actions of the Biden Administration month by month. The US has been supplying the weapons used for Israel's genocide unconditionally for a year. Against international law, against domestic law, against the will of the majority of the population, and all with US taxpayer money. This is pro-genocide foreign policy.

Harris, instead of breaking from Biden on this issue, has not deviated. She has repeatedly ignored the voices of Palestinian Americans, Arab Americans, and Muslim Americans on this issue. These people are directly affected, they have friends and family in Palestine and Lebanon that have been killed by Israel. She has not only taken their votes for granted, but has offered no concessions and ignored their voices. People are angry at Biden and Harris for this. They desperately want change, but they don't see that from the Democratic administration.

Despite Trump's horrendous track record, he has gained in their support solely because of how Harris has campaigned. It's not logical, but it's hard to be when directly affected by the actions of the current administration and no prospect for change. Advocating them to vote for the 'lesser evil' doesn't work when the 'lesser evil' is directly responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. Trump successfully framed himself as a Dove and Hillary as a warmonger in 2016. He's using that same tactic now. It would be a completely unsuccessful framing if Harris pivoted to Arms Embargo or Conditional Aid, but that has not happened.

Breaking from Biden would be a major boost in voter output.

• Split Ticket (July 2024)

• New Poll Suggests Gaza Ceasefire and Arms Embargo Would Help Dems with Swing State Voters (Full YouGov Report) (May 2024)

• Data For Progress Poll (May 2024)

• American Attitudes: Shifting Realities After the Unfolding Genocide in Gaza (Nov 2024)

• https://instituteforglobalaffairs.org/2024/09/vox-populi-battlegrounds/#full-report (Nov 2024)

Simple. You punish zionists and democrats for backing genocide. If they keep losing on their positions then they'll learn to work for your vote. That's why always voting red or blue no matter what is bad. It just makes your vote worthless because you'll vote for them no matter what.

Electoral College with First Past The Post electors. Hundreds of millions of american votes are dumpstered for the presidential election. So a significant portion of protest voters in deep red OR deep blue states aren't impacting the outcome. Only swing states decide the outcome and even then it is only a few districts within those states. And so the electoral outcome for the presidency gets reduced to the most salient wedge issues in those communities.

It just so happens some things are not so localized an issue. So the idea (or one of them) is to demonstrate whether there is a meaningful voting bloc to be had here that deserves to be listened to, or can continue to be ignored.

Everyone else is basically going to give you dogshit answers, here, and I'm not gonna read through the thread to confirm that because I've been in enough of these threads on lemmy to know that it's going to be the most oversimplified and horrible hand-wavy explanations you could've hoped for. I think maybe the collective effort people put into their posts on the internet is dwindling as a result of mass adoption and various social media incentive structures, to the point where even platforms like lemmy are gonna get filled with horrible dogshit and just the worst oldest facebook memes of all time. Don't listen to all those fucking morons, listen to me, I'm the only one effortposting in this removed, because I have psychosis and like to write these out as a way to take notes and review my talking points.

SO, at the lowest level, you have gerrymandering. This applies to things like city council seats within cities, it applies to what gets defined as "inside" and "outside" the city and the county, it applies to districts that elect representatives at the state level, and it even, to a certain degree, applies to the states themselves. Basically, every time the electorate gets subdivided, something you would otherwise think is a good thing, as it lets people be governed more with concerns local to that subdivision, instead, those lines get drawn up most often to favor the party that is currently sitting in that seat. Being that this is instituted at pretty much every level of governance, and that people don't tend to change addresses super often, especially homeowners, this contributes to why most states are not swing states, and why most votes are very predictably "wasted", or, are used by the parties to cancel out other very predictable votes, or are used to further secure and entrench power with more overwhelming margins.

You also have first-past-the-post voting in the vast majority of places, abbreviated as fptp voting, in which you have a single, non-transferable vote. Proponents of this system can basically only defend it on its braindead simplicity, because there's not really any reality in which it accurately represents the interests of the voters. If you think of a voting system as being a way for voters to clearly communicate their preferences, and have those preferences followed, then fptp voting only provides one bit of information: "I want this guy". It doesn't rate candidates in relation to each other, it doesn't tell anyone whether or not you would prefer one candidate over another. So, people get locked in to voting for one candidate which has proved to be consistently popular, and has a good chance of winning so they don't "waste" their vote, which as previously described, is probably already wasted, and so we get locked into a two-party system pretty much everywhere.

Both these systems combine to severely limit the weight of anyone's vote. It effectively means that, outside a couple gerrymandered suburbs, in particular swing states, which can be figured out well in advance of elections, the rest of the votes don't matter. Most votes are just locked in a system where they are effectively being used by the sitting parties to cancel each other out.

Most local races are funded at the local level, meaning they tend to favor older, much more well-off candidates which don't necessarily represent the majority of people's interests. This outsized power can be increased with gerrymandering. Americans also tend to favor sitting candidates over new candidates, both because of FPTP, and also because culturally FPTP has become ingrained, meaning incumbent candidates tend to be able to sit around for as long as they want. Primaries are pretty much unilaterally controlled by the parties that run them, as we have seen in this election, and they are able to pretty effectively select who it is that they want to be elected through the funding and backing of the party, within their territories, which is something that's happening at every level, and not just at the presidential level. So, economics and economic disparity has a great role to play in who is able to run for local positions, on top of obviously having a very clear role at higher levels. Less money can also have a very outsized impact in local, smaller elections, where candidates can court corporate interests and party interests and then bankroll their way into a position pretty much guaranteed. This is why you can pretty much dismiss anyone who's going to suggest that you go and run for local office, as though that's some gotcha. They wouldn't know, because they probably also haven't run for their local offices, but especially at the higher levels, those local offices tend to be controlled by elderly small business owners and a bunch of lawyers. Canvassing and commercials are pretty effective, especially when you can concentrate these on the gerrymandered fraction of the population with values already favorable to institutional powers, which is having an outsized impact.

So, given that your vote is pretty much guaranteed to not matter, is especially guaranteed to not matter at the federal level, and is very especially not going to matter if you live anywhere with any significant population density, lots of people take that as an opportunity to piss their vote away on jill stein or whatever other scammer that's running. Of course, third parties would probably be more effective at the smaller local levels, building up larger and larger bases of support until they are more adequately able to challenge the major parties at the federal level, and even try for federal funding, but we've seen such a level of institutional capture at pretty much every level that it's sort of a fucked game to begin with.

It's so fucked up at every level that I'm not sure I would really fault the parties that are running with like, 2% of the votes, in polling, compared to the fucking massive country-wide institutions that are actually controlling elections and messaging. Those that can even get 2% of the votes are likely to get those votes because they've been donated to by one side, the other, or, much more commonly, both, on top of business interests and foreign powers, who all believe that adding in another spoiler candidate will help their candidate get elected.

To hopefully dissuade some idiotic criticisms before they happen:

Q: Well, then what am I to do!?! If I can't vote on a candidate, and have my vote be effective for that candidate, then what have I done politically? What's the alternative?

A: None of that really contradicts any of what I'm currently saying, it's not a valid counterargument. I've told you the reality of the system, if you have a problem with how your current strategy is not effective in that reality, then take it up with reality, not me. I would probably say that organizations outside of the system, organizations owned by a majority of the people within them, organizations that can wield political power, those would probably be useful. Organizations that can punch above their weight class economically would be most useful. We've seen a recent, very minor rise in unionization and union activity, after decades of downturn as a result of government policies, which has been good, but I am concerned again about many of these unions, and especially the older ones, being subject to institutional capture at the highest levels as a result of ill-thought out internal structures and a desire to "keep out the raffle", from elitism, classism, or racism. If I had thoughts of reformism, then I would aim there, and I would probably also aim to create a lot more interconnections between these smaller unions which are more individually vulnerable. One big union, would be a good idea suited to the moment, and I haven't seen it taken up a lot.

And sure, go out and vote, right, but, don't harbor any illusions about what you're doing when you go out and vote. Focus more on your local candidates and your obscure, idiotic local laws and regulations which are probably going to be explained poorly in some half-baked blogpost or news article, if you're even afforded that dignity rather than just having to read shit straight from the charters and laws themselves. Don't just get invested every 4 years when you get threatened with a new form of fascism by corporate media. If you're falling for that shit, then you're probably running around like a chicken with their head cut off, doing worse than nothing. If you're not willing to put in an hour or two of concentrated reading and research in the right places, then you would be better off, at that point, just ignoring all those anxieties, not voting, and eating jalapeno poppers at chili's or whatever else.

Q: This shit is too long, I can't read it all!

A: Tl;dr GOTO 10

I voted for Harris, but I feel like it's pretty obvious why someone would vote third party instead.

One need only reject the premise that voting should be a strategic act of harm reduction. Mind you, I'm not saying "is" here. I'm saying "should be".

We may not take their approach, but you have to admit that there's value to it. They are embracing the world as it ought to be, whereas we are trying to work with the reality of the situation as we perceive it.

And we could be perceiving incorrectly. For all we know, Trump could loose-cannon his way into making Netanyahu's whole party lose their next election. It may not be likely, but nothing in this world is certain.

For all we know, the Heritage Foundation could destroy so much of the government and economy so rapidly that it weakens all of the property rights and FBI operations aimed against self-sufficient mutual aid, and communes start springing up all over the place. It's not likely without massive turmoil, starvation, and bloodshed. But however unlikely, we cannot predict the future!

Cyncism is costly in terms of mental health and well-being. In order to choose pragmatism over principles, we must accept a reality where no good choices exist. But that's not something we can do everywhere. We can't repeatedly choose the "least miserable option" and still be able to hold ourselves together and function. It's just not possible.

Humans need hope to survive. They need a hill they can hang onto. They need to be able to say, "on this ground, I fight for what should be rather than what is."

Some people's hill is their ballot.

It's the Trolley Problem. Many people finding themselves in that problem would say, "Of course I flip the switch, one person is less than five people".

But if you take a step back it's reasonable to ask, "WHY did I suddenly find myself in this Trolley Problem? Trolleys don't spring into existence fully formed like Athena springing from Zeus' forehead. They are designed and built, piece by piece. The switch was setup by the agency of someone. People were kidnapped and tied down by force. I was placed here on purpose."

So given that realization it's also reasonable when told you must choose to say, "Why? You designed this system. You tied the people down. You could have done it differently and instead deliberately did THIS. I had nothing to do with it and I refuse the premise that I must participate in your fucked up game. No matter what happens the blood is on your hands and I refuse to share in your guilt."

That's the essential argument. There's the realpolitik decision to do "less harm", but you can also reject the fucked up premise.

Lots of people foolishly think political parties can learn lessons.