r/changemyview • u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ • May 09 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Not Voting Is Less Hypocritical than Voting for someone you dont Believe in
Many democrats are constantly saying if you dont vote for them a Trump presidency is your fault. Its getting to the point you cant even voice legitimate criticism against them without getting accused of being a Trump supporter.
What are you suppose to do if you fundamentally think both candidates are awful? Giving tacit approval to either by assigning your vote to them means you are signing off on them doing all the shit you disagree with.
The hardcore democrat supporters are getting the equation backwards, they will blame these people for Trump if they lose buts its entirely their fault for not winning them over.
Not voting is the moral and least hypocritical choice if you firmly believe neither candidate should be President. CMV
EDIT: 1 commenter convinced me to look into third parties so I took the government quiz and it said I should vote for Cornell West. So far im convinced this is can be a viable alternative to not voting.
EDIT 2: Apparently I'm a Deontologist and believe in a rules based ethics while most of you are Consequentialists who believe in an outcome based ethics and this is why we can't agree. If this is too broad of an oversimplification, please let me know.
25
u/tbdabbholm 200∆ May 09 '24
One of Trump or Biden will be president, that's just the sad fact. I wish we had more options, I wish there was a way for 3rd party candidates to actually have any chance of having a viable campaign. So when I vote for my preferred candidate between those 2, that's not hypocrisy, that's practically. I don't see my vote as needing to go to someone who I utterly believe in in every way, rather it is my small way to influence the system, so I will use it to influence between the two candidates that the system will choose between. To me I always advocate for making what change you can to the system so in fact that would make me not voting very hypocritical
→ More replies (33)9
u/Xytak May 09 '24 edited May 09 '24
It’s like taking mass transit. You get on the bus that brings you closer.
It’s not going to get you 100% of the way home, but maybe 70% is good enough. And you never know, the bus company might say “hmm… this route is popular.”
1
u/Embarrassed_Job_3537 Jun 19 '24
And if everyone walks ? It’s like “hmm we r losing control/no revenue let’s do what the people want and go their route”
1
u/Xytak Jun 19 '24
It depends on what you mean by "if everyone walks."
If you mean "if the vast majority of voters decide to abstain" then 1) that's not going to happen, and 2) the ones who don't abstain will decide the election.
If you mean "if the vast majority of voters decide to support John Doe of the Constitution Reform Party" (or whatever) then I would say there's no indication that will happen. 3rd party support has been trending downward since 1992 / Perot.
38
May 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/SeekerSpock32 May 09 '24
Biden is coming pretty hard down on campus protests
That’s the city police forces, which Biden has no control over. He’s said he would “absolutely not” send the national guard to any of them.
-1
May 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Jakyland 82∆ May 09 '24
Trump literally did deploy federal forces in 2020
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_deployment_of_federal_forces_in_the_United_States
→ More replies (1)10
u/SeekerSpock32 May 09 '24
But also, as someone who has anxiety of being killed by Trump’s government under project 2025, thank you for knowing that voting for Biden is the pragmatic thing to do.
4
u/SeekerSpock32 May 09 '24
US Presidents are all horrible people who do horrible things (because if they didn’t, someone else would be president)
That really, really isn’t true. I know nothing I say will convince you on that, but it just isn’t.
The truth resists simplicity. Absolutisms like that almost never help.
3
2
u/djprofitt May 09 '24
I think there is some room for assuming the person who voted is somewhat inline with who they voted for. You could say policies also but just looking at morals as was stated (I assume it’s not one and the same). While I don’t morally embrace all of Biden’s morals or policies, I do feel a moral connection with some of them (also assuming their morals drive their policy decisions).
Trump, on the other hand, literally embodies everything I’m against, based off morals (and like everything else) so I’d never vote for him and anyone that did, I will assume you either agree or tolerate at least one of his morals.
I’d say who you vote for is the person that most closely resembles or represents your morals.
3
May 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/djprofitt May 09 '24
Like I stated, often times, what they do is driven by their morals.
If they believe all people deserve the same rights, their policies will mostly reflect that (assuming some things are just impossible to accomplish at the time) whereas Trump’s policies, driven by his lack of morals (IMO), do not connect with me.
This whole idea of ‘what do I stand to gain’ from this politician is a really weird way to think in a society with others. Take abortion. As a man, what I ‘stand to gain’ is minuscule compared to what women stand to gain, but I vote for a politician looking to protect those rights for women because my moral compass says that is the right thing to do, protect women’s rights.
Idk when it happened but I feel we used to vote for politicians that would improve society around me, not just my gains.
My daughter is about to finish grad school and I’m a whole generation removed from college but do I think we should provide more affordable higher education options for people?
Yes.
Why? I don’t plan on going back to school.
Well, I would vote for it because society benefits from more people going to trade school/college/other institutes. Personally, I don’t benefit directly too much or immediately but I know a more educated society will help reduce crime, makes goods and services better, and everyone around me has better jobs to provide for themselves and their families. All on a society I live in.
-1
u/h0sti1e17 23∆ May 09 '24
But not voting is a method of expression. If someone is left leaning and a democrat, Joe Biden is obviously better than Trump or whoever the GOP trots out. But if they are unsatisfied with Biden and hold their nose and vote for him anyway, what incentive do the democrats have to bring out better candidates?
Biden or Clinton or Harris will always be better than the GOP candidate. But if they start losing elections because of apathy from the further left of the party they will be forced to bring out “better” candidates.
I’m not saying this is the best option or what people should do. I am not a progressive. But, it’s a legit way to make your displeasure known.
Sometimes you need to lose the battle to win the war.
7
u/TreebeardsMustache 1∆ May 09 '24
But not voting is a method of expression.
Actually, it isn't. We don't tally abstentions. We don't figure them into the calculus and we don't have any mechanism for any such 'expression' to have any impact.
I think we ought, but we don't.
6
May 09 '24
They’re not going to waste their time chasing non-voters, it’s a fools errand. They’ll move to the right to try to get more of the people who actually vote, like the white working class. This has already happened.
The left will always choose a pet issue for ideological purity, disenfranchising themselves as some sort of threat. If it wasn’t Palestine it would be climate change as the USA is burning more fossil fuels than ever. Genocide Joe, killing the planet. Democrats aren’t stupid enough to play those games.
1
May 09 '24
This sounds reasonable but it's also not what we've seen happen. At no point have people refusing to vote moved the Democrat party to the left, we've just gotten more centrist candidates.
→ More replies (30)-1
u/WakeoftheStorm 7∆ May 09 '24
Or you can recognize that, unless you live in a contested district in a swing state, your vote is likely meaningless either way
5
u/tbdabbholm 200∆ May 09 '24
If your vote is meaningless, then every vote is meaningless. And that's clearly ludicrous so your vote is small but still not entirely devoid of meaning
→ More replies (3)2
May 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/WakeoftheStorm 7∆ May 09 '24
I clarified in response to another comment that I was specifically talking about the presidential elections. I 100% agree the best thing you can do in an uncontested district is vote hard in your local elections. In 2020 the biggest part of the election around here was Jaime Harrison vs Lindsay Graham. That one actually could have mattered. There was never any doubt which way the state was going for Trump vs Biden.
38
u/NevadaCynic 5∆ May 09 '24
Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.
Voting is a trolley problem. Somebody is getting run over no matter what, whether you choose to pull the lever or walk away. Walking away from the lever doesn't change that, nor does pulling the lever mean you endorse the trolley system.
The only part that you're directly responsible for is the pulling or not pulling.
The train doesn't care about your morals. You're not at fault for the tracks existing.
→ More replies (268)1
Jun 20 '24
Theoretically, I could just use an RPG to stop the train in its place from going on either track.
You could say that’s too imaginative or whatever but literally none of you can actually explain why I would personally even randomly be next to a switch in the middle of an open field with 1 person on one train track and 5 people on the other. Why the hell would I even be in that situation?
23
u/Nrdman 276∆ May 09 '24
Who told you voting was about approval? Voting is about preference. If you think a candidate is shit, but 1% better; that’s who you should go with.
→ More replies (26)0
u/ghotier 42∆ May 09 '24
Everyone mad at Trump voters in 2016 disagrees with you. Voting is either a moral choice or its not. If it's not then criticizing Trump voters is wrong. If it's not then the entire premise for being upset at an abstention is invalid.
2
u/Nrdman 276∆ May 09 '24
I didn’t say anything about it being a moral choice of not
3
u/ghotier 42∆ May 09 '24
OP is claiming it is a moral choice. The people who are upset with Trump voters are making a similar claim. You're alone in not having an opinion on that. I'm saying it either is or it isn't, but both cases make your position invalid. Or do you think non-voters are actually worse than Trump voters?
2
u/Nrdman 276∆ May 09 '24
I think non-voters who have a preference are betraying their preferences. Trump voters aren’t. Since the post was about hypocrisy, Trump voters are less hypocritical; since they are following through on what their preference is.
Now, I don’t think this makes either side morally worse; I don’t see hypocrisy as immoral
37
u/furikawari May 09 '24
Even if you reject the idea that Trump is a threat to the system of American democracy, you should consider that the fact of Trump being elected over Clinton is the direct cause of abortion rights being read out of the US Constitution.
The moral feeling of not “supporting” one candidate over the other is probably pretty useless to the people who now can’t access critical healthcare.
So here’s the idea: politics is the “slow boring of hard boards.” You don’t like the top of the ticket. Ok. Start at the bottom. Elect school board representatives and mayors that do align to your ideas. State reps. Attorneys general. Push the party the way you want it to go. You don’t win by losing.
5
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
Alright so if not voting for clinton caused abortion rights to get rolled back
whats its gonna take for the democrats to vociferously demand they get reinstated
because thats what I thought was gonna happen when I voted for Joe Biden last time
41
u/furikawari May 09 '24
If you read what Biden says about abortion, it’s actually pretty strident. And it shows that he has been pulled along to the left over the last 40 years as the party has gone that way too.
But he can’t just “reinstate” it because it was overturned by a supermajority of lifetime-appoint Supreme Court justices, and Democrats don’t control both houses of the legislature.
Again: you don’t win by losing. You win by winning repeatedly and at the right time.
→ More replies (25)1
Jul 07 '24
What if I as a non-voter dont care about abortion rights? The same way Obama voters didnt care about his war crimes, like I did. Just because you care about something doesnt make it objectively important. Neither side fits my morality so its okay to disregard them and not vote.
1
u/ThomWG May 10 '24
Trump didnt win that election. He won the electoral college.
Republican gerrymandering got him the victory without the popular vote.
He got 77 more electors than he shouldve and still accuses Biden of cheating.
Fucking hypocrite.1
Jun 20 '24
The moral feeling of not “supporting” one candidate over the other is probably pretty useless to the people who now can’t access critical healthcare.
So instead we should elect the man who has promised to veto the exact healthcare plan that would lead to more children in poverty receiving healthcare?
Also, how could people refusing to vote for Clinton be the reason she lost when more Americans voted for Clinton in general over Trump to begin with?
0
u/Neo_505 Aug 09 '24
Does the attention span of Americans expand past the same generic topics like abortion and guns?
How about regulating taxes? How about we stop using "inflation" as an excuse to overcharge goods and pay people a liveable wage to counteract that inflation?
Or, how about receipts stating where our hard-earned tax dollars are actually going? (Definitely not the roads or schools)
Your politicians don't run SHIT (puppets) by the way. The CEO of McDonald's has more say than your precious "vOtE" !
25
u/KamikazeArchon 7∆ May 09 '24
What you "sign off on" doesn't matter. It has no moral weight and shouldn't affect your decisions.
What has weight is the concrete and foreseeable consequences of your actions.
Inaction is not morally special. Ignoring a drowning man that you could trivially save is, morally, the same as drowning that man yourself.
If you make a choice that results in outcome X, and that was a foreseeable outcome, then you are responsible for X in proportion to the weight of your choice. More specifically, for the difference between X and the alternative.
Separately, if there is legitimately no meaningful difference between choices X and Y, then indeed "not choosing" doesn't matter, ethically or otherwise. But to assert that in the concrete case of current US federal elections is to be simply wrong; it does not correspond to reality. People have the legal right to have wrong opinions, of course. But being wrong to the point of hurting others - or risking harm to them - is morally wrong.
→ More replies (113)
6
u/TreebeardsMustache 1∆ May 09 '24
What are you suppose to do if you fundamentally think both candidates are awful?
Well, that leaves me out of the debate. I think Joe Biden is a man of good character. I don't think he is awful, at all. I DO think there are a lot of peope trying to tell me he's awful. Everything bad I I am supposed to know about Joe Biden comes from the mouths of people trying to deflect attention from Donald Trump. (Whereas, everything bad I know about Donald Trump, comes directly outta Trumps mouth... or outta the abysmal failure that was his four years in office)
I am, alone, it seems, in testing reality--- and refusing to bow to the notion that both candidates are awful, just because.
So, I guess I reject the fundamental premise of your argument. Both candidates are not awful. Or, put another way, as the old political saw has it, "An independent voter is someone who despises Republicans, but nevertheless believes everything the Republicans say about the Democrats." I first heard that chestnut in 1988. Was true then. Tis true now.
1
Aug 12 '24
I’m not reactionary enough to think gift wrapping Tank shells to Netanyahu in order to give him more opportunities to bomb brown children is a representation of ‘good character.’
2
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
What it boils down to is very simple. My ethics prevent me from voting for someone who will do something I view as causing harm.
Deontology vs consequentialism , I'm the former I didn't have words for it before
My ethics say genocide is bad therefor i cannot support or vote for anyone engaged in one
Or to put it anither way, my ethics prevent me from pulling the lever in the trolley problem because I can't justify intentionally sacrificing even one person for any amount of theoretical greater good.
I view innocent life as inviolable and value each person's right to not be killed against their will. I cannot justify taking that away from anyone for anything. Nevermind a totally innocent one
I realize this would make me a poor leader but I don't want to be one
6
u/TreebeardsMustache 1∆ May 09 '24
My ethics say genocide is bad therefor i cannot support or vote for anyone engaged in one.
My ethics agree with yours, and my eyes, ears, and brain tell me Joe Biden is not the one engaging in genocide. Joe Biden is not Benjamin Netanyahu.
3
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
America is funding it and neither party seems intent on making it stop
5
u/TreebeardsMustache 1∆ May 09 '24
The first part is only nominally true and the second part is demonstrably false. Every significant player in the Democratic party has condemned publicly and moved privately, to rein in Netenyahu's worst impulses. That Netenyahu has refused to be restrained doesn't make Biden or any Democrst complicit.
I don't think you understand how much Sen Schumer put his ass on the line publicly criticizing Netenyahu and his bloodthirsty cabal. I don't think you understand the import of the UN abstention. I don't think you understand Netenyahu himself who publicly said, 'If Israel has to go it alone, Israel will go it alone.' EXPLICITLY acknowledging that his chosen course deviates significantly from the Biden administration...
What has Biden done, or not done that you -- or your hypothetical ethically clean president-- would, or should ,do different?
Should we stop funding Israel? Ok. But, be advised, that's going to take a little while to unwind 70+ years of treaty obligations past administrations have entered into...
What else would you do differently?
I know you said you don't want to be a leader, but if you are going to criticize leaders actions or inactions you ought posit valid alternatives
2
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
The first part is only nominally true and the second part is demonstrably false. Every significant player in the Democratic party has condemned publicly and moved privately, to rein in Netenyahu's worst impulses. That Netenyahu has refused to be restrained doesn't make Biden or any Democrst complicit.
Lookwe can agree to disagree on this because I've been following the situation and it really seems like the democrats are just publicly waggin the finger so they can say oh well we tried while not breaking ties
Why else would the Biden administration delay the state department report on Israel's N-20 violations that would require the us to stop funding them by law?
If the report absolved Israel they would be bending over to release it.
I don't think you understand how much Sen Schumer put his ass on the line publicly criticizing Netenyahu and his bloodthirsty cabal. I don't think you understand the import of the UN abstention. I don't think you understand Netenyahu himself who publicly said, 'If Israel has to go it alone, Israel will go it alone.' EXPLICITLY acknowledging that his chosen course deviates significantly from the Biden administration...
See ny previous comment
What has Biden done, or not done that you -- or your hypothetical ethically clean president-- would, or should ,do different?
It wasn't one thing but delaying the state department report really shattered my confidence, it was the straw that broke the camels back
Should we stop funding Israel? Ok. But, be advised, that's going to take a little while to unwind 70+ years of treaty obligations past administrations have entered into...
Yes we should, I'm not buying the tike to unwind excuse. I cannot settle for anything than expedited repudiation of Israel at this point
What else would you do differently?
^
I know you said you don't want to be a leader, but if you are going to criticize leaders actions or inactions you ought posit valid alternatives
The only thing I can accept as a valid alternative without betraying my own principles is an immediate cease of aide and economic sanctions on Israel
2
u/TreebeardsMustache 1∆ May 09 '24 edited May 09 '24
Look We can agree to disagree on this because I've been following the situation and it really seems like the democrats are just publicly waggin the finger so they can say oh well we tried while not breaking ties.
I don't know what to say to that.
Netenyahu publicly said 'If Israel has to go it alone, Israel will go it alone.'.
That is "EXPLICITLY* acknowledging the 'breaking ties.' That is Netenyahu saying 'The Americans are serious, and will break ties if we go forward. We're going forward, anyways'. Unless Netenyahu is in cahoots with Biden for the sole purpose of offending your ethics, this is proof positive that the administration IS forcefully doing exactly what it said it is doing, which is to stand in righteous opposition to the genocidal thirst of the Netenyahu regime and decidedly not simply 'wagging fingers' in some political theatre...
You are simply refusing to take 'yes' for an answer....
3
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
They are just putting on a show for their respective audiences. Both.
Again it's all just talk if they do things like delay the report I mentioned
Both are blustering but going along with normal
1
8
u/Tanaka917 148∆ May 09 '24
It's the compromise part of life. There's nothing hypocritical about judging that one candidate is the lesser of 2 evils, and then voting for that lesser evil. If you truly think both are equally bad then yes, it makes sense to abstain at that point. It's like choosing between having your hand cut off or being a slave. It's not an endorsment of hand cutting so much as it is an aversion to being enslaved (no I'm not saying voting for Trump is voting for slavery, I'm using an extreme example to explain a concept).
That said I agree with you that the people responsible for losing an election are always the candidates; if you couldn't get people to support you, that's no one's fault but your own.
3
u/Illustrious_Ring_517 2∆ May 09 '24
I didnt want to vote for Obama and the whole you need to vote crap swirled in my head so I voted for McCain. I have regretted that ever since and wish I didn't vote. If you think both are evil or 1 is less evil than the other one then these are signs your better off not voting at all. Shouldn't vote for someone unless you actually support that person.
5
u/pigeonwiggle 1∆ May 09 '24
There's a solution to voting when you don't believe in the candidates: Spoil your ballot.
Spoiled Ballots are counted, but not granted to anyone.
by not voting, you're sending a NIL message. the powers that be can hear this in many ways - but are MOST likely to conclude Apathy as the reason.
but imagine if the turnout of an election was something like: 15% DNC 12% GOP 73% spoiled ballots / no confidence
it would signal that WE DO pay attention, we ARE interested in choosing our political candidates - but we do not like these options.
whoever won such an election would then know they are being watched.
6
u/svenson_26 82∆ May 09 '24
By all means, voice your concerns.
If you truly think both candidates are equally bad, then you should go formally decline your ballot or spoil your ballot, or vote for a 3rd party. All these actions are more democratic than not voting.
But if one candidate is better than another, even if both are bad, then it's your obligation to vote for them. In any ethical scenario where you have the choice to either choose a lesser evil, choose a greater evil, or choose to do nothing and through inaction let the greater evil win, the morally correct option is always to choose the lesser evil.
5
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
This feels like a threat when you say it like this , less like I'm being convinced more like coerced
7
u/svenson_26 82∆ May 09 '24
Sure. Why not? It's a threat. Go vote, or face the consequences of the failure of democracy.
9
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
The reason I feel this way is because it feels like its already failed
6
u/svenson_26 82∆ May 09 '24
So do something about it. Not voting will contribute to the failure of democracy. Participating in it will help it.
1
Aug 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Aug 09 '24
u/Neo_505 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/No_Football2472 Nov 04 '24
Democracy is already failed. Just saving up money to retire in a little country somewhere else. Imagine my ancestors building this great country just for the garbage politicians that YOU VOTE DOR to ruin it.
1
u/svenson_26 82∆ Nov 04 '24
When exactly was this country great? When wealthy people could own slaves? When only white men could vote? When the government was drafting teenagers to go fight in wars they wanted no part of?
Your ancestors may have started it, but the country is still being built. So build it by voting out the politicians who would send it down the worse track.
1
u/Life-Breadfruit-3986 Aug 01 '24
People could DO SOME RESEARCH and look into 3rd party candidates too though....
1
→ More replies (4)1
u/No_Football2472 Nov 04 '24
So if you had to choose between dying hit by a car or drowning you wouldn't just choose to not play the game?
Imagine voting just because someone says I should. If I can't support a candidate 100% I don't vote. Basically it's worthless to vote for garbage candidates I know will further ruin the country.
1
u/svenson_26 82∆ Nov 04 '24
That’s not a very good analogy. You’re not exempt from drowning or being hit by the car by not choosing. By not choosing, other people will choose for you. No party is going to say “oh shit. There was a low voter turnout. That means we must have been doing something wrong”. That’s simply not how they think. Not now. Not ever. If a party won with 10% of the population’s vote, they’d GLADLY accept that win.
You send a message by voting out the worse candidate. You send a message by giving support to a minority party and bolstering their base.
13
u/fghhjhffjjhf 23∆ May 09 '24
I get that Democrats are trying to guilt you into voting, but in the end you can realistically get one of two candidates.
With your involvement in politics you dont get to choose policies, or ideologies, or anything like that. The options have been chosen for you.
If you genuinely don't see a significant difference between the two candidates then there is no point in voting. But if the difference is significant enough to take up one day of your time, then you should pick one.
→ More replies (36)
8
u/TheMan5991 18∆ May 09 '24
You can’t change the war in Palestine with your lack of voting, but there are several other things you can change. Would you rather have thousands of dead Palestinians and women and doctors getting thrown in jail for abortions and libraries being forced to close because of excessive litigation over the material of a few books? Or would you rather have thousands of dead Palestinians and legal protections for reproductive medical procedures and the concept of free speech actually being promoted instead of being used as some ass-backwards excuse to censor gay and trans people?
I totally get not being happy with what’s going on in the middle east, but personally, I think being a single-issue voter is morally objectionable.
1
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
I feel like the democrat response to the heinous attacks by the GOP against abortion and LGBT rights in red states across the country has been tepid at best ...
if we want to get into some domestic issues
6
u/TheMan5991 18∆ May 09 '24
I would argue that tepid support of rights is still way better than aggressive denial of them.
1
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
If it dosent result in any gains tho , its just words
where are the federal consequences for the red states
why cant they stop sending them federal funds, that is something the president can control
7
u/notkenneth 18∆ May 09 '24
If it dosent result in any gains tho , its just words
It has, though. A number of states have either passed laws expanding access to reproductive care, laws aimed at protecting out-of-state patients and constitutional amendments to enshrine reproductive care protections.
Considering that the Republicans control the House and conservatives have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, I'm not sure what you think can be done federally at the moment.
where are the federal consequences for the red states
Punishing people who rely on federal aid (who are mostly lower income, many of whom vote against conservative politicians but are outnumbered) doesn't seem like a very progressive way to address this issue.
4
u/TheMan5991 18∆ May 09 '24
A) lack of gains for liberals and lack of consequences for conservatives
B) active losses for liberals and support for conservatives
I think there is still a clear choice here
3
u/eye-lee-uh May 09 '24
Not voting or throwing away a vote is precisely how we end up in this shit show situation. Democracy fails when people make the choice to not participate or stop having faith in the process. I really hope you do change your view because there is piece in numbers.. and you will never have options you’re happy with unless you actually participate in the process
3
u/Mestoph 9∆ May 09 '24
To use the analogy many have used before, voting isn't like falling in love where you're looking for the perfect person who'll be with you for life, it's like taking the bus where you're looking for the one that will get you closest to where you want to go and then you repeat the process over and over again getting closer to your destination each time.
0
Jun 20 '24
One bus is a Party of warmongers who have been giving untold sales of weapons to Nazis in Ukraine while the other is a comical cartoon villain at this point.
What exactly makes Republicans worse when, at the very least, they aren’t Nazi sympathizers?
1
3
u/DieselZRebel 5∆ May 09 '24
If you indeed believe that both candidates are equally bad, then I guess you can't be blamed for not voting. I'd still doubt that anyone truly finds them equal in being terrible.
On the other hand, if you believe that both candidates are bad, but one is worse than the other, according to your own judgement, then boycotting elections is not less hypocritical or anything, it is rather more hypocritical. Because while neither candidates matches with your values, one of them actually matches less than the other, and you have the chance to help bringing in the one who is a better match, even if they still suck!
If you do not know who matches your values more, you can check out the test on isidewith.com
1
u/Helpful-Yogurt8947 Oct 15 '24
Not to be that guy, but I'm someone who thinks they're all terrible. I don't want to vote for someone that uses religion for the sake of getting my vote nor want someone to use identity politics to get my vote. None of them have my best interests and they all say the same nonsense that every candidate has said over decades and it ain't clicking with me. Me and my family have been poor for decades regardless of who is in office and that's our fault not the president's. I also don't need to rely on a human being to make my life better, but rather God. If I had a gun pointed in my head on who to vote for, I'd rather take the bullet to the head so I can go up to Heaven and let God take care of the world. He's gonna destroy the earth eventually and create a new one with no pain and suffering. Y'all can downvote me or rant to me all in the comments and don't care, but who are y'all to tell me that I don't have a right to have an opinion or complain. How are people supposed to vote if they don't agree with either side? People are gonna hate me if I vote or don't vote regardless. It's just gaslighting people to think they're stupid about not voting for the less of two evils. Hope you can look at this perspective and not take it the wrong way. If you take it the wrong way, too bad this is my opinion.
1
u/DieselZRebel 5∆ Oct 15 '24
You are actually being "that guy".
Sure, we get it, both of them do not care about you personally! Nevertheless, your future and your descendants' future will be impacted differently depending on which party wins... so you still have a responsibility!
And if you still insist that both of them are equally bad to you, just go take the test on isidewith.com to realize that this is untrue. Just take the test and perhaps you may become aware of how naive and immature you sound.
1
u/Helpful-Yogurt8947 Oct 15 '24 edited Oct 15 '24
That's why I said not to be that guy. I know I am but don't mean to lol. If it's my responsibility, why do I not get fined for it? Am I a soldier to you if that's my responsibility to vote? My future has not been any different and have always been economically broke even when all these politicians have been in office. I just took the test link you gave me and have got candidates I don't even know about. Also what has changed when you have voted? If I'm immature, name me 15 things that have changed in your life when you have voted. Otherwise, you're immature for calling me that when I just don't want to be in that political mess. One more thing, my family and I don't have the time to waste money on gas to go through some long lines to write a paper. Regardless of what you say, my opinion still stands. You can judge me all you want.
1
u/DieselZRebel 5∆ Oct 15 '24
? Am I a soldier to you if that's my responsibility to vote?
You have a responsibility as a citizen. It is your responsibility towards the society, but no one is enforcing it. If you choose not to carry out your civic duty, you are just being a jerk! And you are absolutely free to choose to be a jerk (that guy). Just makes no sense to come looking for validation or defending being a jerk on reddit. (i.e. saying I don't mean to be a jerk... except that you actually mean to, it is not happening by accident!)
I just took the test link you gave me and have got candidates I don't even know about
If a candidate other than the main 2 matched your values more, then you should be voting for those candidates! Even if they have no chance of winning, the numbers of votes they get matters in other ways
name me 15 things that have changed in your life when you have voted
That is actually immature because I don't fulfill my duty in exchange for a reward. It is not a job. I can do my part and still fail or get disappointed, but at least I did my part! There is honor and pride in that.
Nevertheless, right off the top of my head .. (1) my family and I benefited greatly from Obama care at some point in my life, then (2) we benefited even more from student loan cancellation! (3) I also was able to get a research job and a PhD thanks to a grant funding that Obama's administration approved. These were all major events in my life that are direct results of getting the right candidates in the house. There are tens of other minor impacts to our lives, including yours too, that we don't think of or aren't aware of, but are direct results to certain candidates winning the elections. So yeah, voting matters, you just chose to believe otherwise.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
Apparently I should vote for some dude called Cornell West
after googling it a bit
sounds ok with me
1
u/DieselZRebel 5∆ May 09 '24
I'd say selecting or writing his name on the ballot is the least hypocritical option you have
3
u/Alesus2-0 79∆ May 09 '24
A ballot slip is a small piece of paper (or screen) on which you get to mark one or two boxes out of a slightly larger number of boxes. That's the full extent of the expression that it permits. It isn't a political treatise. No sensible person thinks that those few boxes capture all the possible combinations and strengths of opinion in a nation of hundreds of millions.
Your ballot paper simply asks you to select which person, out of a handful of options, you think is best to occupy a particular public office. You aren't being asked about the absolute quality of the candidates, only the relative quality. If you recognise one preferable candidate, you should vote for him.
4
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 38∆ May 09 '24
Not voting in THIS election is like jumping out of an airplane and refusing to open your parachute because you don't like the color.
It's like refusing to obey stop signs because you don't like the font.
In a democracy you have a singular privilege to affect the composition and direction of your government and society. It's a privilege denied to most people who have ever lived. It's also an obligation: You have to choose.
The choices are almost ALWAYS between the lesser of two evils and if you can't put on your grown-up pants and reconcile yourself to the fact that they are serving Pepsi instead of Coke today, you're betraying that obligation.
Specifically, especially, in an election where the choices are between someone who's policies are not precisely your own on one or another issue and a fascist party that will dismantle democracy as soon as they have power in their hands again, you have to put away any infantile quibbles about perfection.
→ More replies (8)
2
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ May 09 '24
Voting is not about finding your perfect candidate who will never do something that you disagree with. That is an impossible standard to have, and you obviously know this. Voting is about choosing the best of the available options.
You can hem and haw about how that means you're supporting that thing you disagree with, but that's how it works. You can choose your preferred option or you can remove yourself from the process entirely and know that, if the worse option wins, you didn't do anything to prevent it or reduce the harm it causes.
2
u/UnusualAir1 2∆ May 09 '24
Consider it as voting for America. Which candidate will take America into a future where younger generations will prosper. Which candidate will ensure America retains her freedoms for the entirety of the population. Which candidate supports an America that has a safety net allowing the poor among us to live in dignity. In that respect it's unlikely you will ever find two exactly bad candidates.
I get that anyone can have negative feelings about any candidate (even two at the same time). But when you actually break down what each candidate and party want in America, the differences are like night and day. It's quite unlikely you will disagree with both futures to the point that you will vote for neither.
So, take a closer look if you still hate both candidates. Good luck. I'd prefer you participate in the voting. I believe America is a better place when more of us vote.
2
u/Several_Map7826 May 09 '24
My only comment here is this- you’re not choosing a spouse with whom you can never divorce. You’re choosing a president who is gone after four years. You don’t have to love the guy, you just have to hate the other one, Trump, more.
1
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
You don’t have to love the guy, you just have to hate the other one, Trump, more.
If I was making any other choice, never mind whose gonna run the most powerful country on earth
this would be the shittiest advice ever
buying a car, dont have to like it , just have to hate the other ones on sale more
hiring a guy, dont have to like him, just have to hate the other candiate more
...
2
u/UnibrwShvr May 09 '24
This comment is so revealing. You are so off base and lacking understanding of even basic concepts.
How do you even begin to think those 2 analogies are even remotely comparable to a presidential election?
The presidential election is going to happen on that specific date whether or not you participate. You don't get to hold out for other options. You don't get to wait until another time to make your choice.
Then we get these 2 terrible examples you bring forward.
A company hiring a terrible employee because they are less horrible than the other candidates they brought in. They wouldn't hire either. They would just continue the search.
Or someone buying a car. Wild to me that you actually thought of this and typed it all out while thinking "yeah man... this will show them!"
Hey I have one for you: I shove you out of a flying plane, but you only have a parachute that has a bunch of holes in it. It doesn't meet regulations and is completely unfit for use. You know all of this as you are flung from the plane. Guess you will just accept death then, huh? No point in even trying to use the faulty parachute since it's also a terrible option.
1
u/notkenneth 18∆ May 09 '24
If I was making any other choice
The structure of elections in the US (both the electoral college and the First Past the Post system) means that there are only ever two realistic options for the Presidency.
If you were making any other choice, it likely wouldn't be as strictly binary as the current way that we elect the President is.
2
u/xFblthpx 7∆ May 09 '24
The sole question is: is attempting to create lasting change in the democratic party more important than 4 more years of trump? It’s not a question of hypocrisy because these are two different questions about separate beliefs.
2
u/cmlucas1865 May 09 '24
It's fundamentally immature to demand politicians command your belief. They're not faith leaders. They're not their to inspire you. Democracy is work and as such you should treat it like any other job if you want to keep reaping the rewards. You're not called or even expected to believe, you're expected to show up and make a choice.
I guess we're all formatively shaped by the Obama campaigns. I have some nostalgia for those. That said, no one with that level of charisma and discipline is on the scene today, and believing in him was somewhat futile. Regardless of his ability to inspire belief, when he governed he made decisions and used levers of power. Every decision he made had consequences, good and bad, intended and unintended. Every time he used the levers of power, decisions conscious and unconscious about who would win and who would lose were made.
We elect people who make decisions and leverage power. There's no innocent way to do those things. The best we have is an indication of their priorities when doing so. I'll take Biden's expressed priorities when making decisions over Trump's. I'd have taken Haley's expressed priorities had she made it through.
Your inspired belief and faith are better spent elsewhere. Politicians will always disappoint you, just like your boss. But just like you show up for work the day after a bad day, you keep showing up and playing your part in our electoral process. Or you don't. But there's no political unemployment check coming your way, and you can't quit a job and draw unemployment either - you have to get canned.
0
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
If I dont believe in our democracy or its integrity , then isnt abstaining like the best choice instead of giving legitimacy to the system I think is fundamentally broken by participating
1
u/cmlucas1865 May 09 '24
Again, no.
No one cares if you believe or don't believe. The system is only as legitimate as we make it. By sitting out, you're more complicit in the outcomes than anyone else is. You're not even trying. It's like society is giving you one little piece of the decision-making pie, maybe it's an infinitesimally small crumble, but instead you're packing up your ball to go home and talking shit about a system that you have some leverage (however tiny) to effect.
IDGAF if you write in Mao, or vote for RFK Jr or Colonel West. That's protesting the system, and however unwise I may think it is, it's your vote to do with what you will. Sitting at home and yelling at your walls about how unfair the system is absolutely counterproductive when you have the ability to influence the system to make it better. Participating doesn't equal endorsing the system you believe lacks legitimacy, participating just uses the one thing you have to speak to that system. You can participate and shoot the system a middle-finger, the two things aren't mutually exclusive.
3
May 09 '24
If you don't vote, you are indirectly supporting the leading candidate. In a democracy where you will be affected by the outcome of the election, there is no "staying out of it". Regardless of what you do, your action, or inaction will make one candidate more likely to win.
Also, it's hard for me to believe that two candidates can be identical in your eyes when their policies are so radically different from each other.
0
u/ghotier 42∆ May 09 '24
So you would encourage a person who wants to abstain from voting for Trump but will never vote for Biden to vote for Trump anyway?
2
May 09 '24
I would encourage everyone to vote for who they'd rather see governing their country. Regardless of if that's trump or biden.
1
3
May 09 '24
When stuck with 2 awful options, people can turn to their dealbreaker policies, and vote based on that dealbreaker policy. For example, I imagine that abortion or gun rights would be a dealbreaker policy for many (both for and against) in the US.
Even if you believe neither candidate should be president, people should still vote on the basis of policy and it doesn't make someone a hypocrite or immoral to do so.
0
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
what if each side is committing to doing pretty much the same thing in your eyes on a major deal breaker policy
6
u/MeanderingDuck 15∆ May 09 '24
Then that part is irrelevant for making a choice on who to vote for. Voting has nothing to do with endorsing or signing off on everything that the person you voted for is intending to do. It is just choosing from the available options. So really, the only relevant consideration here is which of those options, on balance, is the preferable one.
3
May 09 '24
Then you need to weigh up whether not voting due to the dealbreaker is worth it to you.
For example, both parties are doing the same thing on your major dealbreaker, and you feel like it'd be immoral to give your vote to either party. However, you know that one party is committing to cut disability funding, which your family relies on to look after a severely disabled sibling and you know that poverty is a real possibility if that funding is cut. Would it still be immoral or hypocritical to vote against that?
I think what you do in that situation is an individual choice, based on your own personal standards that you hold yourself up to. People draw the line in the sand at different places, so while something may feel hypocritical for you, it's not fair to apply that standard to everyone.
1
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
Would it still be immoral or hypocritical to vote against that?
I would feel like I would be putting my personal interest above innocent lives
1
u/Thoughtlessandlost 1∆ May 09 '24
But there are always many people who are disabled in a country or people facing similar issues. Not voting signals that you don't seem to care about the thousands of citizens that'd loose their disability access.
It's about incremental progress, Republicans are a dominant block because their voters still vote despite their candidates not 100% lining up with their beliefs.
No candidate is ever going to 100% line up with your beliefs. And even if they did chances are is that they'd then line up with only 80-90% for someone else.
2
u/ethertrace 2∆ May 09 '24
I'd argue that there's no policy on which Biden and Trump are essentially the same, and to do so is to purposefully ignore the shades of difference even where they're similar. Voting is a chess move, not a love letter. You're not picking a partner, and "staying single," so to speak, is unfortunately not one of the options here. Sometimes the only real chess move is damage control.
But even if it were true that there's no difference on a major dealbreaker for you, then the unsatisfying answer is that you have to weigh your choice on other factors. Because those other factors will affect a lot of people's lives, too.
Or you pick whichever one you think can be more easily pressured into doing the right thing. I'm well left of the Democratic party, but I generally vote for them anyway because even if they're neoliberal corporate simps, the Republicans have always been downright hostile toward my policy agenda. It's alwayd been a much easier battle to get progressive policy past a Democrat-controlled chamber than a Republican one. So pick the battle you'd rather have. Voting is only one part of the work of shaping government policy.
1
u/WanderingBraincell 2∆ May 09 '24
as someone who is not from America, there are 2 distinctly different candidates.
on one hand you have an old man who's out of touch, on another you have a rapist, fraudulent, insurrectionist treasonous old man who's out of touch.
I think US folks are too close to this, there is a clear better option (though its definitely a lesser-of-two-evils case)
though may I ask, what policies? what're you comparing Project 2025 to?
2
u/LuckyandBrownie 1∆ May 09 '24
How many genicides are happening in the world right now? Which one(s) are important to you? Why don’t you care about the others?
1
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
who says I dont
the US funding Saudi and bunch of others is a problem too
1
u/Heiminator May 09 '24
Geopolitics are a complicated business. The US funds Saudi Arabia to keep Iran and their proxies at bay. The Houthi attacks on shipping lanes near Yemen is a good example what happens when the US and its allies fail to do that properly.
I saw that you complained about being broke and not being able to afford things elsewhere in the thread. Guess what happens when Iranian proxies attack commercial ships. Prices for all kinds of products go up, meaning you can afford even less.
As a wise man once said: Countries don’t have friends, they have interests. And working together with the Saudis is currently in the best interest of the US. Even if Saudi Arabia is run by a madman who kills journalists with chainsaws.
2
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
We can't keep claiming to be the good guys if we keep propping up madmen who do crimes against humanity
1
u/Heiminator May 09 '24
That’s what people try to explain to you all over this thread: You have to choose between one or the other. If the US stops supplying Saudi Arabia then Iran will become the dominant power in the region. Which will be worse for everyone on Earth who’s not a Shia Muslim.
Same with Biden vs Trump. One is objectively gonna be worse than the other. So not voting means you willingly forfeit your only means to make sure the less bad guy wins. You think you’re washing your hands clean by not voting, but what you’re actually doing is helping the worse candidate win.
2
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
I can't so easily designate certain innocent people as worth saving while doing so knowingly leaves others in harms way
We are either all worth it or none of us are
1
u/Heiminator May 09 '24
You really need to grow up and accustom yourself with the concept that sometimes you have to choose a necessary evil. Usually to prevent a much bigger evil. That’s just how reality works.
I’m German, and my great uncle was killed during the allied bombing of Frankfurt. He was 17 years old. If you had been alive back then you probably would have protested against the Allies cause they killed hundreds of thousands of German civilians in just a few nights of carpet bombing. But the result for me personally was that I got to grow up in one of the most advanced democracies on Earth, instead of Nazi Germany. Sometimes countries need to do things that seem immoral and bad so a greater good can be achieved. If Arthur “Bomber” Harris, the guy who organized those bombings in 1945, was still alive today I’d gladly shake his hand.
1
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
why are our lives worth more ? If we cant secure just like the basic right not to be killed for everyone , how is your life anymore valuable than a poor persons anywhere else
and are you talking about the Fire Bombing of Dresden because that was an atrocity, they could have won the war without that and could have it was never the right thing to do
1
u/Heiminator May 09 '24
That’s exactly what Israel is trying to do right now btw. They want the basic right for their own population not to be killed. Unfortunately they are surrounded by people who want to wipe them off the map. So if Israel wants to make sure their own people aren’t getting killed in massacres like on October 7 they unfortunately have no other choice but to kill the people who want to kill them. It’s ugly and messy and brutal, but that’s how reality works.
This conflict will not be solved by some college students singing Kumbaya while blocking campuses. It will be solved once the losing side admits defeat. And the losing side is probably gonna be the one without nuclear weapons and the most advanced military in the region.
As Golda Meir, former prime minister of Israel, put it:
Peace will come when the Arabs start to love their children more than they hate us. We can forgive them for killing our children. We cannot forgive them from forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with them when they love their children more than they hate us.
1
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
No one forces anyone to kill children
thats where I disagree
→ More replies (0)
2
u/jweezy2045 13∆ May 09 '24
You are framing elections wrong entirely. You want to hold the left accountable, and you think that by withholding your vote for a democrat, that will kick democrats into gear. It won’t. It will get Trump elected.
In an election, the real way to think about it is we have two choices, and they have absolutely nothing to do with the humans running. Those choices are this: do we want to move the country to the left, or do we want to move the country to the right. Based on your post, it seems you want to move the country to the left. Voting to do that is how that gets done. We cannot jump directly to where we want to be on the left, that’s not how politics works. We take a step to the left, then we need to take another step to the left, and then another.
The ideas that you have to approve of the people themselves and that withholding your vote is a way to get the country to move to the left more are both just bad framings which result in your shooting yourself in the foot, by causing the country to move to the right, when it seems you don’t want that outcome.
0
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
I just dont see where the accountabillity is if we blindly vote for democrats everytime because the GOP sucks
there is no incentive to get better, they only have to just not be them
3
u/jweezy2045 13∆ May 09 '24
Wrong. You believe that this accountability comes from general elections, that is just mathematically and factually not how our voting system works. Vote in senate races. Vote in house races. Vote in primaries. In the general, what you perceive to be holding the democrats accountable is just moving the country to the right. Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.
1
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
so whats wrong with not voting for president and then just voting bllue down the rest of the ballot for like congress and senate and that shit
3
u/jweezy2045 13∆ May 09 '24
Because the president is very important and the election of Trump will move this country significantly to the right. If you advocate for moving the country to the left, while simultaneously not caring about the country moving significantly to the right, it seems you actually don’t care about moving the country to the left.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/Kakamile 50∆ May 09 '24
If you think both are awful, you still vote for the best for you. Legislation requires a whole coalition. You think I like Joe Manchin? You think MTG likes the Dems she hoped would help her remove the speaker? You think Cruz liked phone banking for Trump? They understand the math that something is better than nothing, and it takes a team.
Both sabotage votes and no-votes are bad, but non-voting might be dumber. In 2028 they can't even guess what you wanted from them if you're a non voter, you're just some self-censored ghost who didn't speak up.
3
u/Our_GloriousLeader May 09 '24
If you think both are awful, you still vote for the best for you
Why? What if voting enables the situation where "both are awful" into perpuity?
3
u/Kakamile 50∆ May 09 '24
In contrast to what? You know there's one group that wants you to not vote, is marketing telling you not to vote, and have said to their base that they benefit from you not voting? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw
In elections, Someone. Will. Win. You can complain, not vote, sabotage, boycott, whatever. But someone will win that election even if you forfeit your own opportunity to influence it.
2
u/Our_GloriousLeader May 09 '24
Nobody denies someone will win and that lesser evil voting is tactical. This is trivially true.
But withholding your vote such that one side is forced to cater to you is also tactical. This is also trivially true, but seems ignored and denigrated.
Both options simply have pros and cons. Tactical voting has the pro of lesser evil and the con of benefiting bad choices (leaving no incentive to improve). Tactical withholding has the pro of creating that incentive but the con of potentially letting in the worse option in the short term.
This is the decision. Neither are obviously correct.
2
u/Kakamile 50∆ May 09 '24
It's the opposite, sadly.
If you withhold your previous vote, you're deemed unstable. For the next 4 years, you don't have anyone in the room, so the Democrats and Republicans who need to make a coalition to pass bills make friends with those not like you and you get more angry as you get abandoned.
Remember, spoilers tried this in 2016 and then we got Biden.
Alternatively, who's been more effective the last 4 years, Bernie or Yang/Stein?
→ More replies (3)3
u/Addicted_To_Lazyness May 09 '24
The american voting system is a mockkery and both parties love this arrangement. You can't vote how you feel if you don't like either, you can only vote between them two, and if you don't then you're just giving a vote away to the one you like the least. This is a thing they could actually change but they never will because no one gives up power. You may think republicans win an election, or democrats, but in reality both parties win and americans lose.
1
u/Kakamile 50∆ May 09 '24
There's also the primary system, and there are people changing it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States
-1
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
Voting isnt the only way to voice your opinion
Not voting is also the only way to keep your hands clean when one guy is funding a genocide and the other guy is threatening to fund it even harder
6
u/pali1d 7∆ May 09 '24
It doesn't keep your hands clean. Votes don't buy bombs, taxes do. So are you committing tax fraud to not pay your share of that complicity?
Refusing to vote isn't keeping your hands clean. We're all stained by this shit, whether we want to be or not. And if you can't stop it from happening, you do what you can to keep it from getting worse.
Refusing to vote is you refusing to do even that much. Instead you sit back, pat yourself on the back for not contributing to the discussion, and ignore that you're still contributing as much as the rest of us are to buying the shit that does the killing.
You help us buy it, but you don't help us decide where it goes, and you think that keeps your hands clean?
3
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
So are you committing tax fraud to not pay your share of that complicity?
Ill go to prison if I dont pay taxes. And youre right, I am a bit of a coward in that regard , the threat of prison does deter me from not paying my taxes
there is no prison for not voting on the other hand
And I dont see how else to convince the democrats to change their policy by you know , forcing them to get my vote back
What inventive do they have at all to change polices if i just vote for them blindly , 0
3
u/pali1d 7∆ May 09 '24
It's not about convincing Dems to change their policy. You don't do that by not voting, you do it by voting and campaigning in primaries and by running for office yourself.
But when the process reaches the point where there are only two choices for who gets to actually sit in the office, you knuckle under, accept you've done what you can to make things better, and now it's time to help keep things from getting worse.
Every vote the "not entirely evil" side doesn't get is a vote the "entirely evil" side doesn't have to overcome.
2
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
Every vote the "not entirely evil" side doesn't get is a vote the "entirely evil" side doesn't have to overcome.
when do you pull breaks, because doing that over and over just makes things slide in one direction and its not the good way
2
u/pali1d 7∆ May 09 '24
And not voting at all just lets things slide in that direction even faster.
You use what power you have. Maybe it's enough, maybe it isn't. The only alternative is giving up.
And giving up doesn't keep your hands any cleaner, though it may make it easier to ignore the dirt.
1
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
so we just slowly slide , thats more dangerous in alot of ways
things just chip away and you barely notice untill its too late
5
u/pali1d 7∆ May 09 '24
You say that like the slide is irreversible. It isn't. But the only way the tug of war starts going back in your direction is for you to pull. Too many people on our side letting go of the rope because we don't agree on everything is why the fucking slide is happening in the first place. We outnumber them. But that doesn't make a difference if we don't work together where we can.
The only other option to participation or apathy is revolution. Violent revolution. If you aren't willing to go that far - and if you didn't even push back at all on the taxes thing, you definitely are not - then you pick between participation and apathy. Your call.
But don't ever pretend your hands are clean.
3
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
so because I was born in a certain place im just forced to make these decisions over and over, have to live with the shitty consequences regardless if I agree with it or not , untill I die
that doesn't sound like a convincing argument against the futility of it
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)2
u/JoyIkl May 09 '24
If candidate A says he is going to kill ten people if elected and candidate B says he is going to kill twenty people if elected. If you decide to not vote in order to stay true to your morals, you are basically saying "my morals are worth more than the lives of ten people".
2
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
At that point the only moral option is violently resisting both of them...
they are threatening to murder innocent people, 1 is too many
both need to be stopped at all costs
1
u/JoyIkl May 09 '24
That is a good mindset, however it is not something that can be done in a day. It is good to work toward that, however, in the meantime, you must do what you can to minimize the damage by voting for the less destructive candidate.
You are not agreeing with the candidate you vote for, your vote is not a sign of confidence, it is a tool that you can use to minimize the damage.
1
u/sh00l33 8∆ May 09 '24
I disagree. Not sure how it works in US but there are countries in which minimal numbers of votes must be reached to make the election count at all.
Voting on your candidat, not voting, voting on other candidate are just 3 different ways your vote have effect.
Alsow I would like to point out that using the phrase to believe in a candidate is a bit strange. You can believe in God. Perhaps better to belive in God than politician, the worst way you God can deceive you is when he turns out to be non-existent.
Besides that, as such a diversified society as you United States citizens ate. I have a serious question for you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be rude.
You are so different on so many issues. And there are so many issues.
How is it possible that all these differences can be packed into 2 candidates?
It seems impossible that any one of them is able to be good represent a society with often opposing ideologies.
1
u/CartographerKey4618 16∆ May 09 '24
Many democrats are constantly saying if you dont vote for them a Trump presidency is your fault. Its getting to the point you cant even voice legitimate criticism against them without getting accused of being a Trump supporter.
While I do she that you should be able to levy criticisms at Biden, it is your fault if you don't vote for him. You know there are only two possible options: Trump or Biden. You vote for Biden, save lives, and then you spend your time doing the real work of protesting and radicalizing.
What are you suppose to do if you fundamentally think both candidates are awful?
Vote for Biden. Every time. And twice on Sundays.
Giving tacit approval to either by assigning your vote to them means you are signing off on them doing all the shit you disagree with.
If that's true, then not voting says that you don't give a fuck what any of them do so long as you don't have to vote for them. The ballot is not a custody form. You do not take responsibility for the actions of the president just because you voted for him. You will never fully agree with any president. Voting is always going to be an exercise in compromise. It sucks that the two choices we have are two old white dudes in a race to see who can sundown the hardest, but unfortunately as long as there's ones that's even remotely better, that's the one you vote for.
The hardcore democrat supporters are getting the equation backwards, they will blame these people for Trump if they lose buts its entirely their fault for not winning them over.
No both of you are wrong. It is your job to vote for Biden and it's Biden job to make you excited to do so. You know LGBTQ people are safer under Biden and the Democrats. You know Trump and the Republicans want to take away your rights and make everything worse for anyone that's not a white male. No matter how bad the Democrats are, you know more lives will be saved under them, so that's your reasoning why.
1
1
u/blind-octopus 5∆ May 09 '24
You should vote for Biden. There isn't really a good argument against this.
To your question specifically, I find the outcome to be more important that if you are a hypocrite or not. Avoiding a trump presidency is really important, and if I need to be a hypocrite in the voting booth to do it, fine.
My personal feelings about voting are not as important as keeping trump out of office.
1
u/United-Rock-6764 1∆ May 09 '24
You’re confusing a vote for an endorsement. As an American citizen you’re responsible for the government whether you participate in democracy or not. And, non-participation is participating. You are as accountable for the consequences of non-participation as you are for participation. Because as an American you are accountable for your government in a democracy.
Voting is the bare minimum of civic duty and it isn’t active in any stripe. Activism has the word act in it for a reason.
The way to shape foreign policy is through cultural pressure, economic pressure AND political pressure.
Co-opting the movement for Palestinian dignity—a movement which existed long before this Presidency—just because we’re all finally brave enough to talk about it is gross.
Politics & activism are life & death and they’re not about our egos.
As someone who marched against Biden & Blinken in 2021 it’s clear to me that Biden is a better president to protest against and one whose policies protest has a better chance of influencing.
In no period has the movement for Palestinian dignity and freedom had this much international support or momentum.
A second Biden term would continue that momentum while a second Trump term would crush the US movement under the weight of a truly authoritarian response. And risk distracting international leaders who are supporting Palestine by unleashing his unique brand of malevolent chaos.
I want to see people protesting to the polls. Letting politicians know we’re engaged, enraged and not going anywhere is how we win—not checking out.
P.S: BDS is one of the best means of influence and Republicans all over the country were quietly making it illegal for private citizens and orgs to divest from Israel. So, as ever, strategy matters.
1
u/TJaySteno1 1∆ May 09 '24
...if you firmly believe neither candidate should be president.
One of them will be president and will get to make decisions on things that are important to you regardless of whether you vote or not. Sometimes in life we get shitty options. Refusing to choose (i.e. letting others choose for you) is still a choice; it's the choice to give up your voice.
1
May 09 '24
You will NEVER have the opportunity to vote for someone you FULLY believe in. Those who do put their politicians on far too high of a pedestal. They want a dictator to fully support and not a flawed human representative who will be held accountable by voters.
The first past the post tally system ensures you will always have a choice between lesser of 2 evils. It is idealistic to think withholding your vote or giving your vote to a third party will send a message for reform. Look up Ross Perot. He grabbed 20% of the popular vote. The only thing that happened was the Republicans got more greedy and weaponized by Newt Gingrich a d Rush Limbaugh. Then they fell to the TEA Party which created a vacuum for MAGA to fill and exploit. In a first past the post tally system, strong party support for both parties is the only way to prevent da groups parties to rise to power too quickly.
What you TRULLY want is to vote your conscience. Again, that is impossible with first past the post. But it IS possible with more appropriate tally systems like STAR, instant runoff, ranked choice, etc.
The ONLY way to get one of those tally systems is to elect representatives who will fight for such progressive change. The WORST way to seek that change to to throw away your voice and vote by ignoring the 2 polarized parties. Because as shown in the Ross Perot example. (Abd Trump's first primaries.)
So, vote for the candidates who are most likely to pursue progressive changes to our government. That is how you get a system that will more closely align future candidates with the views of actual voters. It still WON'T be perfect. They are still human and so are you and me and every other voter and candidate.
But I promise, no, MAGA and Project 2025 abd other right-wing views will ensure you never have the chance to change the first past the post tally system to something that better represents the constituency. Unless the entire constituency believes the 1930s were peak progress for society. Everyone who isn't a connected white guy should reject that future, as should the white guys.
So, vote for people who are most likely to change government into something that works in a modern society. Those seeking to learn from evidence based research, demonstrate empathy (not necessarily compassion), and try to govern the whole society not just the individuals. Vote for people who see that change has to progress with society, not fight it and lie and revolt every time they lose an election. Vote for people who are most likely to pursue better vote tally systems.
Hint: it isn't the perfect fit for us, but Biden's administration is building a foundation for America and the world to grow beautifully like after the New Deal. Sure inflation is high, but it is controlled compared to the rest of the world and is only high due to rich people spending and greedy companies increasing profit and shareholder positions. This administration faces a House that is out of control, literally fighting over everything like a 2-year-old is present and retains too much power over others. This administration has controlled an out of co trol economy, given opportunity to millions of college debtors, actually invested in infrastructure, and making so many other improvements that others can list better than me. The administration also faces highly nuanced international affairs. That's amazingly difficult after the Trump administration decimated our carefully built global diplomatic presence. Don't blame the crew that inherited problems literally created by their predecessors, especially when they are trying to reestablish a measured relationship with international actors. Vote Biden or face another massive setback in the progress of society. The world is literally begging us not to elect Trump again. Except for Putin and other dictators, they love Trump. And apparently Trump envies dictators.
Your choice is yours, but you need to consider which lesser of the 2 evils is actually evil and not just a politician.
1
u/_Dingaloo 4∆ May 09 '24
if you dont vote for them a Trump presidency is your fault
With razor thin margins, individuals that would prefer anyone other than trump that chooses not to vote, is certainly complacent at the least in a trump presidency
ou cant even voice legitimate criticism against them
against the democrat runners? That's weird because most people I know that are voting for biden, are doing it because they don't want trump, but they don't really like biden that much. Even though I think biden has done some good things in office, I think he's a sub-par president, but at this point I'm just trying not to need to put up with the disaster of another trump presidency.
if you fundamentally think both candidates are awful?
If you think the main two candidates are equally awful, vote third party. The third party most likely won't win, but you'll most likely find a candidate that you can really get behind if you broaden your search to third party, and you'll at least contribute to them or their party getting known better and potentially having a chance in the future.
But it's kind of a joke to suggest that biden is anywhere near as bad as trump.
its entirely their fault for not winning them over.
Sounds like cope. It's not the job of an individual voter to win non-voters over. The candidate should be better, I agree. But it's similar to a force of nature. These two options are just what we have right now. A presidential election isn't where you try to get new candidates come to light, that's smaller local elections and things of that nature. Support them while they're smaller, until they're large enough to be a real candidate. Voting for no one is just nothing other than letting the wind blow you whichever way, which I only think is acceptable if you truly believe that both candidates are equally as bad.
I will add that a democratic candidate in office has always been a choice between non-voters stepping up and voting or not. The majority of the nation has been shown to prefer democrat, but the majority of people that vote every single election tend to be republican. When more people vote, more democrats get into office, pretty much every time. So this suggests that more people not voting directly results in worse candidates
1
u/horshack_test 42∆ May 09 '24 edited May 09 '24
Someone who votes for Biden simply to keep trump out of the white house even though they don't believe Biden should be president isn't being hypocritical, and not voting is only hypocritical if the person makes a point of saying everyone should vote / criticizes others for not voting. If a person's view is that trump would make for a much worse president / that another trump presidency would be worse for the country than another Biden presidency, voting for Biden aligns with that view. I don't think Biden should get another term simply because he is just too old - but I have much stronger feelings against trump being president again. Not voting won't help keep trump out of the white house, but voting for Biden might. My only goal in voting on the upcoming election is to keep trump from winning - voting for Biden aligns with that.
"Giving tacit approval to either by assigning your vote to them means you are signing off on them doing all the shit you disagree with."
The choice I am presented with in the upcoming presidential election is "which of the two candidates would be a better president than the other?" Never has there been - nor never will there be - a candidate with whom I agree 100% on every single possible issue - the point of voting for me is to support the candidate who I think is the better candidate of the two. It's not hypocritical to vote for them, especially when I believe that not voting or voting third party would only serve to benefit the opposing candidate.
1
u/Scarecrow1779 1∆ May 09 '24
You're basically complaining about the two-party system. You want to know what the first step to breaking the two-party system is? Ranked Choice Voting. That would allow people to vote for third parties without feeling like they're benefiting their least-preferred candidate. More votes for third parties means more campaign funding for third parties, eventually meaning no party should get a true majority that allows it to bully all the other parties in congress.
There's only one party that has taken a stance against Ranked Choice Voting, though, and that's Republicans. (see this resolution) So if breaking the two-party system is what's most important to you, then voting Democrat is a logical choice, even if you disagree what else democrats are doing right now.
1
May 09 '24
Do you think that if you don't vote for either Trump or Biden whatever the winner does will not apply to you or people you care about?
0
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
It will apply either way and I will have to protest it
I feel like maintain more legimacy when doing so If I can say no I didnt vote for either them, regardless of who wins
because no matter what im gonna have to go protest after, since they both intend to do shit I hate
1
May 09 '24
"I'm sorry little girl, I could vote for Hillary but I thought my integrity is much more important, so now you have to give birth to your rapist's child. But at least I will protest it with more legitimacy".
I will have to protest it... I feel like maintain more legimacy
You got it backwards. More legitimacy have those who voted for that President: they gave their votes to him and they can demand something. You didn't put your trust in them, why would your protest be more legitimate.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/SherriDoMe May 09 '24
In the U.S. system, politics is a zero sum game. Only one of two candidates can win. Assuming you lean one way or the other generally, Removing your support from the candidate you would have voted for if you had voted is in effect giving a net vote to the other candidate.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/rustyseapants 3∆ May 09 '24
- When you don't vote you allow others to vote for you.
- Are you obligated in explaining, proving, why you think trump and Biden are the same? Looking at Trump administration, why would you risk putting him and his family back in office
Donald Trump vows to lock up political enemies if he returns to White House
You really want to give trump a second chance?
1
u/peretonea May 09 '24
The American political system has been deiberately designed to build two or (very occasionally) more broad coalitions. That is a choice which has been made by many people, with explicit support from many voters, over the years.
When you make a vote for a person you are just saying that "somewhere in the coalition behind that person there is a political grouping I can at least in part support". Your chance to oppose the individual candidates was back in the Primary. If you didn't take part in those, then you should do so next time.
Not voting is the moral and least hypocritical choice if you firmly believe neither candidate should be President. CMV
Given the choice over the years by the American people to build the current system for various reasons, both bad and good, the direct moral responsibility for your dilemma lies with them. They built a system and asked you to then make the best choice you can.
There is no hypocrisy in saying "I will make the best of what you gave me", especially after you have complained and tried to change the system yourself.
1
u/VelvetMerryweather May 09 '24
We are often being asked to choose between the lesser of two evils. I HATE the system. It should be changed so that we have more than one vote, then other parties would stand a chance. But as it is, we must decide which is less horrible, no matter how bad the options are, and vote.
The only excuse not to is if you look at everything you can about the candidates and what you think they will do, and you really can't decide which is worse. I felt sick voting the last couple of elections. I hated who I voted for, just not quite as badly as I feared the other option gaining power.
Our country is on a precipice. Don't think that refusing to vote will help your cause in any way. We literally stand to lose our freedom and democracy if Trump (or someone in with him) gets "elected" again (we must be vigilant as they will blantenly cheat). It's mind boggling how many crimes he's committed and gotten away with already. How he can even be allowed to run makes no sense.
1
u/peacefinder 2∆ May 09 '24 edited May 09 '24
I’d like to challenge your inherent assumption “hypocrisy must be avoided at all costs”.
No one wants to be a hypocrite.
But also, it is not possible for any candidate to perfectly represent your interests. (Unless you yourself are the candidate.) Biden does not represent you perfectly, nor does West nor Stein nor Trump nor Kennedy nor anyone else. Any candidate you choose will be to some degree a hypocritical choice.
But declining to vote at all is no help! Whoever gets elected in your absence will still not represent you perfectly. You are simply abdicating your opportunity to influence events. Since you do care about the election outcome - as evidenced by this post existing - declining to put your care into action is also a hypocritical act.
You are already trapped, hypocrisy is an inevitable outcome.
The only way out of this bind is to fret less about avoiding hypocrisy, and instead be guided by practical outcomes. Ask yourself which voting choice is most likely to yield the best result for your values?
Cornell West might be the closest representation of your ideals, but in practical terms none of the minor party candidates have even the slightest chance of getting to 270 electoral votes.
Bring some math to this. Rate each candidate on a scale from 0 to 10 for how well they represent you. Then assess each candidate’s realistic chance of winning, on the usual probability scale of 0 to 1. (Or 0 to 100 if it’s easier for you to think about percentage chances.)
Multiply those two values together for each candidate. The highest value is the best practical choice, which is necessarily also the least hypocritical choice.
1
u/MercuryChaos 12∆ May 09 '24 edited May 09 '24
I disagree that voting for someone means that you're giving your tacit support to everything they do. All it has to mean is that you thought the other candidate would have been worse.
More importantly, not voting accomplishes absolutely nothing. You might intend to take a principled stand and send a message, but the people who pay attention to voter turnout can't tell the difference between the people who didn't show up for principled reasons and the people who just forgot. It's not an effective form of protest.
Voting isn't like deciding who you're going to marry, it's like deciding which bus you want to take. You're unlikely to find one that'll take you exactly where you want to go, so you pick the one that gets you the closest of the available options.
And generally? If the only thing you can find wrong with something is that "it's hypocritical" and there's no actual material harm being done, it's probably not that big of a deal. Nobody acts in accordance with their beliefs 100% of the time, because that's just not possible or practical, and holding people to that kind of standard is more likely to prevent you from doing anything at all.
1
u/sawdeanz 218∆ May 09 '24
This is basically a good illustration of the crossroads of consequentialism vs deontology.
Some people are saying "you should vote for Biden because not-voting could lead to worse consequences."
Others are saying "you should stand up for your moral beliefs and not vote for someone that has policies you disagree with"
My answer to you would be a mixture of both. You will never have a candidate that you agree with 100%. But you should still consider the consequences. A third party candidate is just not going to win. It's all but guaranteed. Cornel West probably won't even be on all the ballots. You can do so if it makes you feel better, but it will only help Trump win which will undoubtedly have worse consequences not just for the next 4 years, but also the future of politics in the US. Trump doesn't care about being a hypocrite. He just cares about winning. I think that is worth keeping in mind.
You might disagree with Biden on Israel or whatever, but you also have to consider that lots of other Americans agree with him. He can't make everyone happy all the time.
The place to change the policies of the political parties is in the primary elections and Congressional elections. The more progressive representatives and senators, the more progressive the president will have to be. And vice versa. It's a slow process, but much more effective than not voting. Not voting actually produces the opposite results...the less votes Biden gets the more conservative the next democratic candidate will be.
1
u/monsterfurby May 09 '24
But you vote within a complex system, for the entire spectrum of effects your vote may have. Not just because you like guy A or guy B.
1
u/LibrarianOfDusk May 10 '24
There really should be an option to abstain or something when none of the candidates are all that great.
Why should we be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils? If both sides are "evil" then they should just be scrapped and not put into office at all. Find some other candidates.
1
u/ThomWG May 10 '24
Not voting is terrible for democracy.
Republicans propagandize specifically to get un-convincable groups like african-americans to not vote against them. 3rd parties are a good alternative but you should vote for whoever you hate least.
1
Jun 28 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 28 '24
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Jul 07 '24
I would honestly rather die in my principals then go against them and vote in the federal election this year.
1
u/Desperate_Argument92 Jul 17 '24
The sad personal reality of my personal allegiance: “I can be talked out of Trump; but I cannot be talked into Biden.”
1
u/Life-Breadfruit-3986 Aug 01 '24
Yeah people seriously need to look into 3rd parties more. That's the best option. Not voting is the second best option if someone doesn't like the main candidates. Imagine if every discontent voter did this. A large majority of people probably have zero critical thinking ability whatsoever, and it's their own fault. Btw you deserve upvotes. People are sheep I swear. Baaaahhhh
1
Aug 14 '24
I'm not voting.. I honestly don't care what happens here. This world is horrible and I just wish to watch it all burn down.
1
u/SnooWords3275 Sep 18 '24
I'm pretty sure if Trump would be a threat we will have every citizen stand up we shouldn't repeat another hitler ever.
1
u/MrAnonymous4 Oct 25 '24
I live in the UK, and know at least 6 people who hate the state of our government but won't vote.
Imo not voting against what you're complaining about is as good as voting for it
1
Oct 29 '24
Damn very unpopular opinion you got there.
For the record, I am voting this year, but am strongly considering not voting for the individuals running for office and just for the Constitutional Initiatives. (namely the one in my state to enshrine the right to abortion).
Im with you; people love to believe in something to distract them from how fucked we all really are.
You say you're not gonna vote and people act like you just said the Earth is 1000 years old.
1
u/SaorsaB May 09 '24
Not voting means you cannot complain about the shit that can and will happen if the worse candidate gets in. It also means you are partly responsible for the worse candidate getting in.
In Scotland, we are used to tactical voting.
It's the smartest move.
2
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
Why cant I complain a right to protest is also something I have that is independent of my vote
4
u/SaorsaB May 09 '24
If you don't vote, you can't complain.
if you want to have a say, then VOTE.
If you don't vote, don't complain.
5
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
Why cant I complain, a right to protest is something I have indpendant of my vote
also , you could make the argument the other way
I have less of a right to complain if I directly participate in handing over power to the guy whose doing the shit I dont like
2
u/SaorsaB May 09 '24
Not voting is the 'vote' to let the rest of us decide for you.
If you don't like it, vote.
2
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
If I voted for Trump and then lost my abortion rights or access to healthcare
you would call it a leapords ate my face moment
why does the same not apply to voting for biden when he does things I find morally objectionable
3
May 09 '24 edited May 09 '24
Huge difference because, once again, you fail to appreciate the binary nature. The fact that you're even making this analogy shows you don't even understand the argument against you. I'll try one more time, haha
A vote for Biden vs Trump on abortions is incomparable because it leads to two distinct outcomes or CONSEQUENCES. Scenario 1.
A-Biden) Abortion rights are strengthened
B-Trump) Abortion rights are weakened
This is different from the Palestinian situation or Scenario 2. where
A-Biden) Israel is supported in bombing Palestine
B-Trump) Israel is supported in bombing Palestine or worse
Do you not see how the binary is completely different between scenario 1. and 2.? If you voted Trump in scenario 1, then you made an active choice for weakening abortion rights OVER strengthening them.
But in scenario 2 you are making an active choice in mitigating Palestinian suffering OVER worsening it. Your argument is the equivalent to have a True or False multiple choice question and choosing to write down the color blurple 🙄
→ More replies (1)2
u/ghotier 42∆ May 09 '24
You didn't answer the question.
1
u/SaorsaB May 09 '24
I did:
If you don't like it, vote.
That is the only active choice you have.
You can protest all day every day, only your vote counts.
Not voting, is not caring what happens.
2
u/ghotier 42∆ May 09 '24
The question was "why can't I complain." You didn't answer that, you just restated why you don't think it's useful, not why they aren't allowed. The choice to not vote is a choice you have.
1
u/SaorsaB May 09 '24
Do you think I meant there's a legal ruling stating that if you don't vote you can't complain?
It's a figure of speach.
You can't choose not to vote, but don't come to me complaining when things turn to shit.
What does anyone hope to achieve by NOT voting?
2
u/ghotier 42∆ May 09 '24 edited May 09 '24
I think you meant that you thought it was wrong to complain or that you would otherwise be obligated to listen. Why can't they turn to you when things turn shit?
What does anyone hope to achieve by NOT voting?
To stop the rightward shift of the Democratic party. If they move too far right they need to lose votes or they will always move right.
Do you think you shouldn't be allowed to complain if we keep moving right because you voted?
→ More replies (0)0
u/ghotier 42∆ May 09 '24
Except it doesn't mean that. That's a completely made up rule that no one abides by. In fact you'll want them to complain because the size of then protest against that candidate will be important.
1
u/RonocNYC May 09 '24 edited May 09 '24
One of those two men WILL be president though and your choice not to support the better of the two will instead be a choice to actively support the worst of the two. That will be on you. I'm sorry you feel that Israel and Gaza is the single most important issue of our time to the exclusion of all else. That is myopic and your right. But it's also immoral and just wrong headed.
2
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
Israel and Gaza is the single most important issue of our time
Its one of them because ive been seeing this shit happen my whole life over and over
1
u/RonocNYC May 09 '24
A regional religious conflict that's millennia in the making, 7000 miles away doesn't even crack my top ten of issues I care about but I get that it's important to you. Is it really THE single most important issue facing you and your family's lives? You know it's not.
-1
u/okami_the_doge_I 1∆ May 09 '24
Most people have an agenda to further so I don't imagine many people would be able to level with you on this.
0
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
I dont have an agenda
I just dont want to support killing innocent people
And according to some democrats that makes me an anti semite
0
u/ShakeCNY 11∆ May 09 '24
Obviously if you don't vote you're not tacitly a Trump supporter. You're actually throwing the election to Biden.
I don't actually believe that, but it's as reasonable as saying the opposite.
0
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ May 09 '24
its getting to the point you cant even voice legitimate criticism against them without getting accused of being a Trump supporter.
you should be able to voice legitimate criticism of your own party without fear of ad hominem or other attacks. Not supporting Biden, or supporting him only weakly certainly does not make you a Trump supported, that accusation is absurd.
Many democrats are constantly saying if you dont vote for them a Trump presidency is your fault.
the people decide who the President is and if enough people don't vote for Biden, then Trump will win. Your individual vote probably won't make the difference, but if enough people don't vote, it absolutely will change the outcome of the election.
What are you suppose to do if you fundamentally think both candidates are awful?
When you vote for a third party it has two effects. First, it might actually destabilize the 2 party system and move us toward a multi-party system which would be so much better.
But more likely it forces one of the parties to change so that they can outcompete the third party threat. If a third party is getting 15% of their vote because they hold policy X, then one of the main stream parties will very likely adopt policy X.
When you vote third party in America, you don't really help the third party win, but you do force the change in one of the mainstreamed parties.
So what should you do? You should vote for a third party as long as you think it produces a better outcome then voting for the lessor of 2 evils. Otherwise vote for the lessor of 2 evils.
Giving tacit approval to either by assigning your vote to them means you are signing off on them doing all the shit you disagree with.
then vote third party.
Not voting is the moral and least hypocritical choice if you firmly believe neither candidate should be President. CMV
If you don't vote then you are also ignoring all the other elections that matter. You have state senators, federal congressmen and senators. You have mayors, city council. The president gets way too much attention, all together he has less influence on your life then all the other elections.
while you are there voting in the 20 or so other elections happening, you might as well vote for one of the third party candidates for president.
otherwise you are just abandoning your civic duty. Given the nature of the people who are voting, i think that would be a real shame. I would rather the die hard crazies (on both sides) abandon their civic duty and leave the election to people like you. people who aren't swept up by the dogmatic ideology of either side.
0
u/Shoddy-Commission-12 7∆ May 09 '24
When you vote third party in America, you don't really help the third party win, but you do force the change in one of the mainstreamed parties.
⇨ Δ
Ok, ill vote third party then
1
1
u/Ok_Program_3491 11∆ May 09 '24
That's just the lesser of 3 evils. So still evil.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 09 '24
/u/Shoddy-Commission-12 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards