Who are you supposed to vote for when you feel it doesn't matter? Or when you feel that all candidates are insufficient?
Additionally, if we're speaking of the US, the electoral college can and will supercede the popular vote. We literally put these people in power just to say we're wrong and they will quickly say we're wrong and work against the popular votes because we gave them the authority
OP wants to know why people don’t vote. If you believe in voting you’re probably not going to like any of the answers but they shouldn’t be downvoted for answering the question as asked.
Hey. I'm trying to turn over a new leaf on social media. In situations like this, I will be absolutely serious, direct, and respectful. Regardless of if you disagree with my view, I politely ask the same thing. We need to talk to each other with respect regardless of our views. Agreed?
I'll continue to say this question still isn't being asked in good faith.
Of course the ballot isn't literally, "do u want fascism or nah"
It's between two politicians. You and I are agree that one side is almost inherently better than the other, but you have to remember that a. the other side also believes that they are inherently better than the other, and b. not everyone believes that either side is inherently better than the other.
Judging by your comments I'm assuming you're pro-choice; if someone asked you, "when presented with the choice of outlawing the murder babies, what makes that choice difficult for you?", you'd rightfully say they aren't posing the question in a fair way to you. It's the same thing here, if you're trying to communicate with someone who doesn't outright agree with you you can't just outright attack their position or frame it in a negative light or you just make them defensive and not receptive to an alternative view.
If you're speaking hyperbolically, sure. But when you're trying to have a genuine conversation with someone regarding a serious topic, using hyperbolic speech to belittle someone's position is pretty lame
Ok, but LITERALLY, the ballot says Donald Trump or Joe Biden. HYPERBOLICALLY it says fascism or not. Words don't just mean whatever we want them to mean, and if someone isn't already on board with Trump = fascism (which, don't get me wrong, I'm 100% on that boat), phrasing things in pointed, biased ways isn't going to convince them that we're the side of reason.
phrasing things in pointed, biased ways isn't going to convince them that we're the side of reason.
There is literally no way to reason these people out of the position they didn't reason themselves into. I'm of the firm belief that we need to be heckling, calling out, and generally being as rude and mean as possible to Nazis. Make the fuckers squirm back into their hole.
Read the parent comment that we are under; do they sound like a Nazi to you? I'm not talking about the people that have already made up their mind that they want a Trump presidency, I'm talking about the uninformed, the unaware, the people starting to doubt their resolve, the people unsure their voice matters.
I... What? I think you've got me mistaken for someone else bud, I've voted in every election I could since I was 18, what civic duty have I abandoned? And where did I defend anything?
I’ve voted in every election since Bush senior in 1988 and I do not believe the other guy is speaking hyperbolically at all. It’s so different this time. It truly is.
I feel like everyone that is arguing with what I've said thinks that I don't agree that a Trump presidency will result in a huge increase in fascist ideology. It will be absolutely terrible if the man gets elected again and it absolutely will have drastic consequences to the US government.
This does not change the fact that LITERALLY, the ballot is between Biden and Trump, not between Fascism and Not-Fascism.
If someone is on the fence about something and you talk to them like there's only one logical option (even if there is only one logical option), the immediate reaction will almost be a defensive one, and rarely will they be persuaded to your way of thinking. Like the abortion example I gave above; if you were on the fence about abortion, and someone asked you if you thought murder was wrong, that would be a fair sign that they aren't presenting a good-faith discussion, and just want to brow-beat you in to their opinion. If you ask someone who (somehow) hasn't paid attention to politics in the last decade if they want to let [presidential candidate] turn the country into [bad thing], you're not opening a fair discussion, even if it's most likely true that the outcome you describe is the one we will see.
It's not a difficult choice at all because, you said it yourself; voting for or against when I already stated that I would vote for no one because we as a nation have put people in power that have the authority to supercede our vote. It's not a left or a right thing. It's not a democracy or fascism thing. It's a fact that every single American has to contend with because WE as American citizens allowed it to happen. Isn't that democracy?
Kinda telling of how poor of a choice the Democratic candidates have been that they can't or can barely sway enough votes in their favor when this is on the line.
The electoral college only applies to Presidential elections, but there are many more elections happening for primaries, local, and state elections, where the electoral college doesn't apply. Your vote in these elections is arguably more important than the presidential election and there have been many cases of elections coming down to under a hundred votes.
As for candidates who are insufficient, your vote is not an endorsement of the policies of the candidate, and is an objection to other candidates. This is the flaw of our two party system, and the only optimal strategy is to vote against who you don't want to be president. Voting for representatives who advocate for ranked voting is how this can be fixed, but requires voting in non-presidential elections to create the change, along with a whole set of other challenges.
Nobody should give a fuck about how it fEeLs. Elections are verifiable and essential. You cry about the electoral college and yet don't vote which gives said EC even more of an advantage.
1/3 of the possible voting populace doesn't vote because they are told it won't make a difference, when the last presidential election came down to a few thousand votes. Bugs the hell out of me.
Even if you’re in a non “swing” state, the totals shifting in some new direction will influence it becoming a non swing state over time. It still matters. Both ways.
This was the way the crazy people got abortion banned: They picked something that was crazy out of reach, and kept working for it until it was in reach. Instead of just saying “oh well who cares, it is difficult, I will wait until someone else makes it easy.”
Exactly, the reason it happened is because we became complacent to the point where the only way to win votes for them was to win the craziest sector, they knew everyone else would just keep voting (or not voting). They campaigned constantly because people would froth at the mouth over it and they knew they were single issue voters.
If the 1/3 of the people who don't vote showed up in this election it could actually make a huge difference, hell it could show that the parties need to rethink their entire strategies. They still won't though, but they should.
Damn straight which is why the Dems handed a win to Trump in 2016 and why polling shows that he's likely to win again this year. It takes careful choosing to pick someone that people dislike so much that he can't even win against a bloated orange fascist.
When you compare our choices to eating shit or eating shit and lighting yourself on fire, is it really much of a question why people aren't volunteering to do either of those things?
If the two unpopular candidates were perfectly equal then your argument might have weight, but in my book there's one that's horrible, and one that's not great, but also not horrible.
Politics never has a good candidate, it's always between two bad choices. It's just choosing the best of the two.
Politics never has a good candidate, it's always between two bad choices.
Well now you're catching on to why so many people don't even bother. It's almost as if these two parties want it that way so they can maintain their control. Why do you think the Democrats keep picking candidates that either lose or struggle to win against someone like Trump?
I guess in my thinking, if the act of not voting means you are okay with letting the worst candidate win, then by not voting it means I'm okay with a lot of innocent people being hurt by the horrid policies of the worse candidate. By voting for the lesser of two evils, I'm more saying "I don't want that other candidate".
You're trying to say it's their plot to give you two candidates. What if their plot is instead to convince you not to vote, so their bad candidate gets in easier because you could have helped stop it?
What are you helping to stop when both candidates are terrible? You're helping in the same way that "thoughts and prayers" helps people. You're simply participating in a rigged game and thinking that your participation is some sort of moral choice and "doing the right thing" when in reality that feeling is just self-gratification.
If you think you're helping, why does the political landscape continue to devolve and slide further to the right regardless of who wins? Why are more and more people becoming poor and homeless while a handful of companies and individuals are reaping all the rewards? That's the trajectory you're arguing to help maintain here.
Personally the farther left we go, the louder the right gets. To me, I see a losing battle that they're desperately trying to win. They may win temporarily now and again, but overwhelmingly the younger generations are more liberal. It's why we see the desperate grab for power now, they know even with the tricks it's just a matter of time.
And for your first, I stand by what I said. Your assumption is that both candidates are equal, so what's the point. Except from my point of view, one is vastly better than the alternative, so there is a point.
OP deserves someone participating in the conversation who can honestly answer the question they've asked. Your speculation only adds to the ignorance others already have. You are enforcing an echo chamber and being disrespectful.
I mean your comment isn't 100% off base. I was just being a little prickly about it for reasons that will become clear below -- so the reason I chimed in is:
Me saying my piece on it in no way makes it difficult for others who want to answer the question to give the answers OP deserves.
Some of the people who are going to answer this question who fall into category #2 are going to lie, by definition, and I think it's relevant to point that out and be able to talk about it (that that factor is relevant to the discussion). If everyone was coming into this discussion and telling the truth, then yes it would be inappropriate for someone else to come in and say what those other people's answers were probably going to be.
A long debate about whether or not there are political astroturf accounts on Lemmy is probably off topic here, so I made a thread which might be a little more suited to it.
That's your energy right there. Came in here hoping for actual answers and this trash comment is top. Pure speculation from someone on the opposite side.