Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

.

[TD1]

If you vote against the shifty politician, then you aren't voting well at all. This happens all the time in NI. Vote for DUP because they're not Sinn Fein, or vice versa. It only results in substandard politicians.

[SalmonGod]

And it seems silly to me to act like abstaining from voting gives you less responsibility for what happens in that election. I'd feel just as bad voting for a shitty politician as I would for not voting against them. Whether cast a vote or not, you are still making a decision that is contributing to the election's outcome. Candidates often try to win nowadays by getting their opponents' supporters not to vote. If the Republicans get 1000 fewer Democrats to vote in an area, that has the same effect as getting 1000 more Republican voters. This works because not voting influences elections exactly as much as voting does. The only difference is that you're automatically giving your influence to whoever gets the most counted votes.

All you're telling me is that I'm fucked no matter what I do, and my only hopes lie outside the political system, which I already knew anyway.  Seriously, presenting this perspective to me only intensifies my hatred of the political establishment.  It's the emotional equivalent of being told that one of my children is going to be killed as a sacrifice.  A million people are going to vote on which one, and not casting my vote only increases the chances that it will be my favorite.  And next year, it will happen again.  Fuck that.  That is a situation where the only rational answer is to fight back, because the end result will be all of your children dead in the end, anyway.  And I know that this will be labeled hyperbole, but when it comes to issues like the environment, police state, and military/prison-industrial complex, it's really not.

[BurnedToast]

waste my money voting

wat

Anyway think of it this way:  you voting may not affect how other people vote, but it does indicate the general trend. If we take that to extremes and say that every voter is literally you, what you do still doesn't directly cause them to do anything, but if your reasoning leads to you voting then so will theirs.

If I have to drive to the polls (I don't, personally, but a lot of people do) that's money wasted on gas.

Not a huge amount, but still money wasted is money wasted.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[SalmonGod]

I warned up-front that lesser of two evils logic doesn't work for me, but at least I don't operate on the assumption that I won't be presented with an argument I've never heard before.   I do understand your logic, and it would work for me if the stakes weren't so horrendously high on the stuff that both parties share responsibility for.  But voting for all that stuff for the sake of voting against an important but comparatively narrow subset of other stuff evokes such a visceral emotional disagreement with me, that I might just vomit in the ballot box.

And it's not too much of a de-rail, because this is terrifying stuff.

And I know that this will be labeled hyperbole, but when it comes to issues like the environment, police state, and military/prison-industrial complex, it's really not.

[Reelya]

In the short term, yes.

In the long term, this just ensures an endless cycle of losing ground.

I don't agree with this. Losing ground implies there is ground to lose. If there is ground to lose, that ground came from somewhere. We gained the "ground that we have to lose", under the same two-party system we have now. For example, slavery didn't abolish itself.

Think back to the 1950's. Back then you could have argued that voting is pointless because we're going to lose ground either way. But then we had the civil rights era and clean air / clean water act. People complain about trace water pollution these days that "might" cause disease or cancer, whereas decades ago raw toxic sludge was openly dumped into Americas rivers.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[SalmonGod]

In the short term, yes.

In the long term, this just ensures an endless cycle of losing ground.

I don't agree with this. Losing ground implies there was ground to lose. We didn't gain that ground through a revolution, but gradually.

If there is ground to lose, that ground came from somewhere. If there was no revolution to explain the ground gained, then voting matters, and ground can be both gained and lost through voting.

For example if two-party politics could only lose ground we'd still have slavery, and we wouldn't have the civil rights bill or anything. But back then, the exact same "voting doesn't matter" argument would have been as valid as it is now.

Almost every instance of gaining ground I'm aware of throughout history has been accompanied by monumental efforts of civil disobedience or revolutionary action.  Even LGBT rights first began to be taken seriously after the Stonewall Riots, as even Obama officially recognizes.

[Reelya]

I could debate that

Roe vs Wade for example.

Slavery is another example.

But even for ones with protests, do you think it makes no difference at all who you elect in those circumstances? The government has a number of ways to deal with protests. Appeasing them is a choice. The different parties approach dissent much differently. For example you're not going to see Republicans appease black protesters any time soon.

[TheDarkStar]

Slavery is another example.

Wasn't there a war in the US about that or something?

Of course, if you're talking about the US, talking about the a country other than the US, you might have a point.

[Reelya]

But not a revolution. The pro-government side was the anti-slavery side, the rebels were the pro-slavery side, so it is the exact opposite of advancing a social right through revolution.

[SalmonGod]

I don't agree with this. Losing ground implies there is ground to lose. If there is ground to lose, that ground came from somewhere. We gained the "ground that we have to lose", under the same two-party system we have now. For example, slavery didn't abolish itself.

Think back to the 1950's. Back then you could have argued that voting is pointless because we're going to lose ground either way. But then we had the civil rights era and clean air / clean water act. People complain about trace water pollution these days that "might" cause disease or cancer, whereas decades ago raw toxic sludge was openly dumped into Americas rivers.

There was a war associated with abolishing slavery.  Civil rights era also falls under monumental civil disobedience and revolutionary movements.  Some environmental protections may have been passed decades ago, but they have not been adequate or have not prevented the political establishment from enabling environmental destruction to continue to increase.  Besides, show me any candidate who will make environmental protections a priority now, and I will vote for them enthusiastically.

And... you're not seriously telling me that environmental problems we face today aren't as serious as they were in the past, are you?

But even for ones with protests, do you think it makes no difference at all who you elect in those circumstances? The government has a number of ways to deal with protests. Appeasing them is a choice. The different parties approach dissent much differently. For example you're not going to see Republicans appease black protesters any time soon.

Yes, it does make a difference.  But the candidates that will make the difference you want still have to be there.

But not a revolution. The pro-government side was the anti-slavery side, the rebels were the pro-slavery side, so it is the exact opposite of advancing a social right through revolution.

This is more complicated than you're making it out to be.  It was about slavery for many people, but for the government, it was mostly about preserving the union.

[Reelya]

Actually reading up on the Stonewall Riots, i think it can be debated whether the riots themselves directly changed the laws:

What happened was the riots were a catalyst to the creation of things like gay-rights newspapers and advocacy groups, and peaceful gay events. The riots did not make the laws change, the development of non-violent advocacy did.

[NullForceOmega]

Catalyst=agent of change.