And I’m being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don’t understand it. Can someone please “steelman” that argument for me?
Many people gave up the “vote blue no matter who” sentiment after seeing the results of blue politicians in 2016 and 2020. It’s no surprise people are voting with their hearts more than settling for less now.
What’s interesting is that the Republican party welcomed in these neglected voters. Can you blame them? The Democratic party doesn’t even promote progressive policies anymore. The Democratic party is now the pro-war party too.
I’m not surprised that Trump won. Hilary, Harris, and Biden were all terrible choices
Personally I think people like Tulsa Gabbard and Andrew Yang are playing the long game within the Republican party as the Democrats shut down any chance for change.
I think this was just one issue of many that led to her loss, but to answer your question, it’s somewhat simple:
There are 2 viable options. Voting for one shows support for their platform. But if the 2 options stand together on an important issue and the voter is on the other side of it, the voter cannot support their stance by voting for either option. Voting for either would only serve to erase their opinion which is counter-productive.
If a voter’s opinions cannot be expressed by voting for either option, then it leaves one final recourse to be heard: To not vote for either of them.
This shows up as a drop in turnout. A substantially poor turnout means that there are voters that can be picked up next cycle if either party cares to cater to them. If any parties do this, then the non-voters have successfully exerted influence.
Maybe you disagree that this is a logical strategy but consider this:
Some citizens tried this and lo and behold, their voices were heard. The whole internet is up in arms! All that remains now is to see whether the politicians listen.
They probably won’t, but we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if people turned out to vote against their beliefs on the matter. Which means that, on this issue, the strategy of withholding votes has already been more successful than any outcome that could be arrived at through voting (because, again, those outcomes would only serve to silence these potential voters).
My own argument to these people has been that I’d prefer they go out and cast their (wasted) votes for a third party, rather than simply stay home. A lot of Lemmy disagrees with me on that, focusing on the (true) realization that their third parties won’t get elected.
In this election’s current aftermath, much of the blame has been stating that voters were just lazy or unmotivated. The only thing this message encourages is to repeat more rallies, make more promises by demographics and region so people know to get out and vote.
If you vote third party, it sends a message that you are motivated to vote, but you are not pleased with the current messages of the party. That results in a very different change of action.
Unfortunately, this whole practice is extremely long-term-focused. Many people in this election have been desperate for short-term solutions, like the Ukraine/Gaza wars. Ideally, this kind of reaction would have started in 2016/2020 - but third-party votes have been miniscule in those elections too.
To quote a user from another thread:
Theyre not the ones that need to learn. Voters need to learn DNC is a bunch of wealthy moderates grifting voters.
because americans see voting the same as buying and endorsing a thing which is objectively wrong.
Not buying a product hurts the manufacturer.
Not voting does jack shit. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
America has powerful Karen/Kyle energy where people overreact to a slight flaw in service and this argument is the Karen/Kyle Tantrum argument over genuinely bad policies supported by Harris. They think if they take a fit this election they will be in a better spot next election. The reality is that more poeple will be homeless and out of reach. The media will be in worse shape.
Voting is always a trolley problem.
But overall I don’t think that’s the biggest group of people. The majority of people that didn’t vote I think were tuned out of the election because of ongoing failures.
The arguments are as stupid as you guessed.
These are naive emotional people who are dumb as fuck. I know so many in my life and it’s like arguying with a brick wall.
Children still believe we live in a black and white world, democrats are in power now, genocide is happening, they will not vote for them. The concept that both will finance the genocide but another will be much worse is not something they can understand.
You have others that want to intentionally punish democrats for not doing anything. Great in the meantime, Trump will provide a full carte blanche to Nettanyahu in the middle east, he will continue what he’s doing, annex everything without any limits. They were partying in Israel after Trump won.
A third group wants the system to break down because they think if you’re a post collapse society, they will be able to build their utopia.
Yes as dumb idiots living in la la land.
They would rather accelerate genocide than admit they’re wrong. It’s disgusting
Then work to change it. Your voting system is broken and makes millions feel disenfranchised. People should be able to vote their conscience without worrying about stupid political games.
I’ve criticized then for their voting behavior as well - that if they want outcomes aligned to their values that dictates a particular voting strategy.
But you don’t get to blame them for the outcome. That’s on the broken system, and the failure of the losing party to appeal to them.
They share the blame. This election was lost because of low voter turnout and so many will suffer for it. This wasn’t the electoral college, this wasn’t voter fraud, people had the opportunity to fill in a bubble to stop the proud fascists and they chose not to.
It’s not surprising that people don’t show up to vote if they don’t believe they have a voice. Provide proper representation for them rather than the slightly different shades of purple on offer now. Allow them to voice the nuance of their positions and you’d probably have Kamala as the president elect right now.
This is just the trolley problem - you’re trying to force them to pull a lever when many people feel that the only moral choice is not to.
Give them a way to participate and they’ll be able to weigh the options.
It starts with fury. Everything is beyond messed up over there.
Add in: anger funnels focus. Tunnel vision. It almost feels morally wrong to think of another thing. Anger helps you in a physical fight, so this makes sense. Also, ordering lunch while your neighbor’s house burns down is kinda dickish.
Add in: first past the post voting. This is the big clincher. It forces two party systems mathematically, and most people understandably haven’t heard why.
Factoring in the information in that video, you realize your choice really is Harris or Trump. Third choices get transformed into a vote for the candidate you dislike the most. So you take the best option.
Take away the knowledge of first past the post, and you have every reason to think that third parties will work if you all just had some spine and imagination, god damnit. You resolve not to let yourself be one of the ones who sat by silently while horrible things happen!
Cast protest vote thinking it makes you one of the people who actually helped, not realizing first past the post transforms that vote into a vote for trump, and everybody keeps fighting instead of watching that video and letting the facts it points out inform what they do.
Because the standard for Democrats is perfectionism, but the standard for Republicans is “That’s just Trump being Trump.”
In other words, they didn’t think it through, they got suckered by propaganda.
Imagine thinking “stop committing a genocide” is perfection.
Liberals are amazing creatures.
trump will be 100x worse.
Make that argument to the family members of people experiencing the genocide, I would imagine they will laugh in your face. These people are enduring unimaginable horrors, their children are being brutally murdered and libs keep telling them to suck it up because actually this is the lesser of evils.
It’s a pathetic fucking argument.
Are yiu talking about Gaza? Trump wants Bennie to destroy Palestine. Ets see the looks on their faces then.
Is 100x worse mean genociding 100 times faster? Because if you are not really living in a cave, you will know there can’t be anything worse than what’s already happening.
Dems are always so fast to point out propaganda but how did this brainwashing slip in? There’s no worse or better genocide, you freak.
I’m not an American nor a trump supporter, just an American hater.
Don’t worry. Trump won. You’ll hear a whole lot less about Gaza and genocide now.
Removed by mod
its funny, because literally the next post after yours was this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/07/trump-blank-check-netanyahu-war-iran-panetta
Removed by mod
As a foreigner, if you voted for a genocider (there was two in this race), I do not think you are human.
I feel like that’s such an idealistic way of viewing things. Hypothetically, if you had a choice between indirectly supporting genocide or throwing your entire life into chaos you’d rather ruin your own life? If you’re actually willing to ruin your own life for it you’re more passionate about this issue than 99% of the population. For example I don’t have an issue supporting Ukraine, I’ve donated to support packages going to Ukraine. But you won’t find me on the battlefield because there’s a limit to my support and that limit is at not throwing away my life. I guess that makes me inhuman because I could do more and I’m choosing to not to.
If the table turns sometime, if I have to pick between genocide in the US and fascism here, well, I hope you have a place to hide lmao
How hypocritical and vindictive. I won’t do what I consider humane because you deserve it.
They don’t care about the outcomes of their actions, they care about their feelings as they make the actions. That’s it. Stop wasting your time arguing with children 🤷♂️
I think they still need to be called out for their BS. The response wasn’t just for him, it was also for others who might read it and think that’s somehow an acceptable opinion to have.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Because if it wasn’t Gaza, it would have been another excuse to not lift a lazy goddamned finger and still delude themselves into feeling "morally superior"while sitting on their fat mediocre asses at home.
Before Harris, they also leaned heavily on the “Sleepy Joe” bullshit and “two old white men up for election, who cares”. Once the old “Sleepy Joe” element was removed from the equation, they had to find a way to keep their goddamned stubbornly lazy and ignorant narrative intact.
Now that the election is over, most of these “concerned and outraged” deadweight assholes will never think about Gaza and the plight of its’ people again. And they will keep on feeling smug about themselves.
I’m not American, and I don’t agree with these people either, but I don’t think that calling them lazy and ignorant makes any sense. In the fucked up democracy of the US it’s clear that the only way to get what you want for the coming 4 years is to vote for the least bad candidate. At the same time I can definitely understand that if you view both candidates was horrible, though one way more horrible than the other, you would feel conflicted about voting for either of them.
Let’s do a thought experiment. Assuming both candidates are still roughly equally “popular”. If both candidates wanted to start a genocide, but one would want to kill only 50% of the amount of innocents that the other would kill, how would you vote? Would you vote for the one who is overall the less bad option, which will in turn make you give your vote for something horrible. Or would you abstain and signal that the democracy as it currently stands has lost your confidence entirely, even if it means that on the short term the consequences might be way worse?
Not voting actually costs the democrats something, and should (if they want to win next time) force them to think how to better represent you next time.
It’s fucked up that your democracy came to this. It has become an annoying game theory dilemma instead of voting for the candidate that you actually believe in. Our system here in the Netherlands is certainly also not perfect, since we have too many parties and too long coalition negotiations, but at least I feel like it represents people way better. Anyone can start a party and capture seat if they represent a large enough niche.
I said the same thing about people like you before the election, and I’ll repeat it again. The laser focus on single issue voters was and will always be mostly an excuse to blame someone else.
To look at it another way, if this one issue actually decided the election, why didn’t Harris change her strategy two months ago? … Maybe it’s because this wasn’t the determining issue. Or it was, and her staff was incompetent. Take your pick.
I know one of those people. they are now angry the left lost… 🙄
It is rich to criticize the Democrats for claiming moral superiority while doing nothing, as a justification for not voting for the candidate who would at least try to put a leash on what Israel is doing to Gaza.
If you want what’s best for a suffering people, you should vote for the candidate not trying to give their oppressors a blank check. All of America is responsible for what the president we chose does next.
OP asked for a steelman but good try
This is all that needs to be said on the subject.
Late but here’s my model of the situation. Sort of a WIP and very new but a /gen effortpost, so I welcome thoughts:
It’s individualism versus collectivism. The collectivist understands intimately the function of working together for the protection and future of the group. There is no doubt in her mind about the practical nature of her actions because she can see them play out in her community. The individualist, by contrast, operates solo; everything for him is about your vote, your candidate. This leads to a divide between the individualist and the material outcomes of his actions. This gap—this absence of practicality, we might call it—leaves a vacuum where symbolism can enter. This becomes a problem not when symbolism is simply encountered by the individualist, but when the symbol becomes the act, when the vote becomes a kind of personal expression, and any thought for collective consequences falls by the wayside.
“Ordinarily,” if we imagine such a thing exists, these two identities intermix and act in a complex and altogether non-problematic way; I don’t wish to imply that individualism is simply “bad” while collective action is “good.” For example, concepts of individualism are fundamental to advancing human rights to consent and bodily autonomy.
However, the setting and background of your question is the USA, a country with deep, deep historical ties to white supremacist, capitalist, colonialist, even fascist values, all of which hold the individual as intrinsic over the collective. The result is that hyperindividualism is catastrophically rooted in the heart of U.S. society—even in progressive and leftist spaces!
So, when you see a pro-Palestinian proclaim abstention or that they voted third party, you are witnessing the complex outcome of genuine compassion intermingled with the values instilled by white supremacy and individualism. And so you hear the phrase, “I just can’t in good conscience vote for XYZ.” To degrees varying between people, the vote loses its material value and becomes nothing more than a symbolic moral statement.
This doesn’t mean the leftist non-voter is a white supremacist, of course! Rather, it’s that they have been deeply affected by the presence of those values in their cultural context and have not yet had the opportunity or experience with group frameworks to question their assumptions and reassert the significant importance of collectivism.
So, in conclusion, the unnuanced TLDR is “because America is a racist capitalist hellhole.” The good news I conclude from this, though, is that collectivism can be learned and promoted. Cultural values are definitely not static, and perhaps with education, support, and time, mindsets among leftists can be shifted to better support the whole of the community.
when you are laser focused on a single thing, anything else just slides past you. making life changing decisions with limited information is a uniquely american trait
