How does choosing not to vote—arguably the most fundamental thing that non-moneyed citizens can do to influence the outcome of elections—help to “get the money out of politics?”
10 Likes
This
I’m not advocating for anyone to not vote. I’m arguing that voting is not enough, and that blaming inactive voters is blaming the victim.
1 Like
Voting is the bare minimum any concerned citizen should do.
11 Likes
6 Likes
I don’t buy into anti-Russian fearmongering. It just makes me distrust the fearmongers and their candidates.
It seems self-evident that politicians and political candidates - such as nearly every candidate in the last election, to their credit - should attempt to establish and maintain friendly relations with other nuclear powers, such as Russia.
And equally obviously, foreign spies - particularly the intelligence agencies of nations with unfriendly relationships - exist in order to penetrate security systems, gather information, and when practical to influence events to the benefit of their employer.
Seriously, yawn yawn. Even the Clinton/Putin feud is more tedious than it is scary.
It should be clear by now that I am pretty dismissive of the Russian witch hunt myself, so it doesn’t particularly bother me that Dr. Stein can’t pass that purity test. 
In the end we’re probably on the same side; I’m just a lot less willing to condemn my fellow travelers. As I said in my initial post, I can, do and will vote for candidates regardless of party.
It’s not the stay at home voters fault. In no order it is the DNCs fault for putting up such a vulnerable candidate, and the GOPs fault for not tossing Trump out in his ass.
3 Likes
Agreed.
I’m not sure where the fixation on blame and fault is coming from, when most of the comments on the thread seem focused on being proactive as opposed to being reactive.
7 Likes
“Tossing Trump out on his ass” in this case would have meant “GOP voters showing up to support one of his rivals in the primaries.” So again, that’s on non-voters too.
There were many factors at work in the 2016 election but the non-voters don’t get to absolve themselves from their share of the responsibility for the outcome.
3 Likes
Actually I was thinking administratively - as in the way that the DNC made sure administratively that Sanders did not receive the nomination.
3 Likes
WTH? There is a huge space between “friendly” and “not starting thermonuclear holocaust” when it comes to relations with a hostile foreign power like Russia. Seriously, I read your posts because I think you have something to contribute, but if you’re that deep into the reality-free zone that sees Russia meddling in the 2016 election (and the effort they are already expending in the 2018 election) as a witch hunt, then that time is over. I’m done with you.
ETA: “as a witch hunt.”
4 Likes
This.
Voting is very unlikely to have any meaningful impact at the federal level, but the effort required to vote is relatively trivial, so you may as well do it anyway. And there are plenty of local elections where there is still space to make some difference.
But voting is the beginning of political engagement, not the end.
10 Likes
Addendum: you could replace “voting” in that sentence with “electoral politics” and it would still hold true.
Donating money to electoral candidates is just voting with dollars. It’s still in the same realm as voting itself.
Real political engagement requires time and work. But there are limitless ways to get involved, and there is space for all levels of risk tolerance.
Your local chapter of the DSA might need some more people at their brake light clinics; Assata’s Daughters could use some help setting up a garden; Occupy ICE might need some fresh bodies on the front lines. Etc.
4 Likes
If you didn’t believe that people could be influenced; you wouldn’t be engaged in your voter suppression efforts.
10 Likes
Probably not a great way to get votes, though.
Didn’t Stein use her position and influence to garner donations for a legal recount? Has that recount been litigated yet? If not, what did the funds get used for? Not really game to revisit 2016’s election personally, but it’s been a while since I last asked this.
6 Likes
I basically need a THIS^ button and just to point at other people’s responses before typing. It would just save everyone time.
(I should also really get more into the habit of reading ahead in the thread instead of just responding. Feh.)
6 Likes
um, I 'm on her mailing list.
https://www.votingjustice.us/pennsylvania_report
https://www.votingjustice.us/michigan_report
https://www.votingjustice.us/wisconsin_report
2 Likes
This topic is temporarily closed for 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
This topic was automatically opened after 4 hours.
If you’re really claiming that voting for Democrats leads to the same place as voting for Republicans, I don’t know what to say. Do you really think things would be the same in America if there was a Democratic president in the White House, with majorities (even narrow ones) in the Senate and the House? I can’t imagine any reality-based person would believe that.
Sanders did not receive the domination because he didn’t get the majority of votes. That’s the long and short of it. He did pretty well, certainly better than most people expected, but he lost the primaries fair and square. Why? Because there weren’t enough people voting for him in the key states.
Everything else is scapegoating, blame-shifting, and coming up with excuses for the hoped-for progressive revolution not being popular enough to happen.
My take: the people chasing the non-existent perfect unicorn candidates know, on some level, that they’re being irresponsible, and thus get awfully defensive and prickly whenever they see anyone exhorting others to vote for “non-perfect but better than the alternatives” candidates. Because it’s something I’ve seen again and again, and not just here.
4 Likes
