If you think “voting for imperfect candidates” is a shitty way to bring about positive change then wait until you see where “not voting at all” gets you.
12 Likes
Vote, don’t vote; you don’t influence policy under our current political system unless you have money. We need reform, but blaming the average voters for this situation is bullshit. It’s going to take way, way more to fix this situation then a simple GOTV initiative, and shaming people for not being politically active won’t do anything.
2 Likes
So what’s your solution, then?
Take ‘blame’ and “shame” and ‘personal ego’ out of the equation completely.
What viable steps do you suggest that non-rich people take to actually fix the problem?
16 Likes
Championing the idea that it’s OK not to be politically active when the country is literally experiencing a fascist takeover is not helpful.
15 Likes
Thinking there is a difference will end you up in the same place. So put on your pussy hat and parade about all you like. There is zero correlation between public opinion and what national level politicians advocate for, much less vote for. In some cases non-action is the loudest voice you will ever have…
Okay. Ideally:
First, join a party which has a track record of getting elected and implementing policy and which aligns—secondarily—with your own values and goals. Betterment of the country for everyone should be at the top of that list, regardless.
Joining a party grants you the right to influence the direction the party takes. (You could, I suppose do the opposite and join a different party, but in my case, I found myself becoming really impatient with the Republican party and left for the Democratic party. I identify with neither, but I perceived the Democrats as being more reasonable. So far, I have not been wrong. And my blood pressure is lower after the switch, but you may have a higher capacity for monstrous BS than I do.)
Second, you need to show up and vote or caucus for candidates you favor over others. Or you could run yourself. If you don’t get your way, accept it and be prepared to back someone who can give you a greater percentage of your agenda over, well, much less than that.
In close races, third-party candidates may split the vote. Beware of this. There is no value to be had in losing a candidate which aligns with you 90% of the time by voting for a candidate which aligns with you 100% if that candidate cannot win.
If you can’t bring yourself to participate, then neither country nor party legitimately owes you anything. You have effectively recused yourself from influence, but not responsibility. Again, if you can vote, you have an obligation to vote on behalf of those who are directly prevented from voting.
For the main event, vote for the imperfect candidate over the opposition. You can work on improving things later. It will be much harder to improve things with a candidate who cannot win.
Also true. But that’s a condition that was made possible by every nonvoter. So what was your excuse for not helping to fix it, again?
See what I said above about leaving others in the rain? The rain is also a metaphor for the Supreme court.
12 Likes
People don’t always get the results they want when they want, but there are many examples throughout history where public pressure absolutely did influence the actions of a government. Can you point to a single example of when public apathy and non-action directly led to an important change in the way government conducted itself?
11 Likes
But not this one.
Sitting out elections now is the equivalent of willingly laying down so that other people can stomp all over you.
Non-action won’t do a bit of good if TPTB try to rescind all civil liberties, seizing all property/resources for government use, or if they try reinstating debtors prisons… which they will, if given even the slightest chance.
11 Likes
Color me skeptical of any would-be reformer who claims that the path of the righteous just happens to be the path of least resistance.
10 Likes
“What do we want?”
“NOTHING WE CARE TO ARTICULATE!”
“When do we want it?”
“WHENEVER!”
9 Likes
But it’s not always true. As an example, this only happened because the people of Virginia elected a Democratic governor and flipped 15 House of Delegates seats (i.e. people came out to vote):
400,000 more people now have health care simply because the right people were voted into positions of power, and it only took a few months to achieve. I can guarantee you this wouldn’t have happened had people taken your cynical view and stayed home on election day.
12 Likes
That’s not really true.
Choosing the policy you’d like to see enacted (i.e., choosing to separate kids from their parents, lower taxes for the rich, lower education standards, destroy the EPA, start pointless trade wars with allies and enemies, introduce subsidies for farmers, cosy up to dictators, … OR choosing whatever the fuck Hillary would have done) is influencing policy.
9 Likes
The system is not designed to do that. The FEC isn’t non-partisan, it’s 50-50 Dem-Rep, and requires a majority to do anything about malfeasance. That means that it’s designed to encourage all but the most heinous violations, due to the detente of having a 3-3 tie and requiring 4 votes to act.
3 Likes
The first comment of mine you replied to, I did offer see alternate direction None of the Above won the 2016 election
You just latched on to my first sentence and ignored the rest.
The word I used was “viable.”
The changes you mentioned are necessary, but they won’t happen under this current admin.
And thus far, I haven’t been rude to you… so please dispense with the needlessly snotty 'tude.
I’m not invested in ‘blaming’ anyone for this clusterfuck we now live in; I’m invested in surviving it and then fixing the damage.
8 Likes
Another reason for vote-by-mail. One can stay home and still vote!
Seriously, I think when someone gets the packet, once they start filling it out, they fill it ALL out, regardless of whether advertising and influence generates a listlessness about the candidates. When confronted with a choice, people choose.
6 Likes
Obama would seem to be the exception that proves the rule, if you will. His team ran a positive campaign; what will you get with Obama? Hope. Let the voter fill in what they hope for. And, no real surprise, he generated record high voter turnout.
4 Likes
If you’re waiting for favorable conditions, it will never happen.
Look you replied first with a pretty snarky comment. I think its pretty reasonable for me to be offended at your attempt to blame voters. You’re blaming the victims here for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
I made an observation about how I see the problems with our system, and pointed at what I saw as solutions. You’re the one who came at with an attitude.
The same goes for you; if you’re waiting for the perfect or ‘ideal’ candidate, none exist.
Um… this isn’t kindergarten. If I had deigned to be snarky to you, please believe there would be no question about it.
Except I never did that.
What I said to you, verbatim:
Again, that never happened… but your personal perception thereof is rather telling.
Good day.
7 Likes
I’ve knocked on doors, I’ve called voters, I’ve met with legislators, organized volunteers, went to house and senate committee meetings, wrote letters, donated to campaigns, and PACs. I’ve went to caucus, been a delegate to the county and state Democratic convention. I read all the time, and I talk policy with anyone I think would be receptive. I’ve done almost everything people say you should do, and in all that effort we’ve barely pushed the policy needle.
It’s the money, they need donors more than they need voters. It costs millions to run for office, they just assume the votes will follow. What else are you going to do, vote Republican?
We have to get money out of politics if we want a responsive government.
1 Like
