THIS.
"Boycotting" an election doesn't send the message that you're unhappy, because it doesn't lose them money like it would for a business. You're not the nation's customer.
Refusing to vote sends the message that you're fine with whatever result you get, that other people can decide for you.
"Boycotting" an election doesn't send the message that you're unhappy, because it doesn't lose them money like it would for a business. You're not the nation's customer.
Refusing to vote sends the message that you're fine with whatever result you get, that other people can decide for you.
Reposted from
Lauren Fox
And unfortunately some well-meaning people fall for it, thinking not voting would work the same way as boycotting a business.
Comments
Just not voting as an individual is effectively giving up what little influence you had.
Not voting as a large—ideally majority—organised bloc of votes undermines the legitimacy of the vote and could invalidate it in the eyes of the people.
Make whatever specific point you like the impact of not voting for Biden and I'll likely agree, but your general point is not valid.
But not voting as a large bloc is what we have already, given turnout. Nobody actually gets a majority. So get together a big bloc on non-voters and they still vanish into the already-large bloc of non-voters we already have.
As I said elsewhere...
Attempts to make a statement in the primaries, like we've seen in Michigan and other states, is noticeable because the vote for Uncommitted has a name that separates it from the merely apathetic.
But if you can get the majority of...
They did this in 2016 too.
The Uncommitted vote in the primaries, that was clear.
I'm not interested in blame, I'm far more interested in results.
And I think that all efforts have to be made to stop the genocide before November, which is way too late.
That said, given a choice between a candidate...
1/2
I will not cast a vote for genocide.
Anyone who ever wondered what they’d have done in Germany in 1939 should just look in a mirror. 2/2
If we make it absolutely clear we will not vote for him, we get Trump again. Because I'm...
I'm talking about the vote in November.
I was talking about actual voting. For Presidents, for mayors, for sheriffs, for anyone.
So I would hardly condemn someone for their grief, or demand they vote the way I want. I haven't said anything like that.
But still, it's gonna be...
I'm just one voter. I had nothing to do with the decision to prop up a historically unpopular candidate who's hemorrhaging voters. Go yell at the party. They're the ones giving us Trump.
am guessing he won't necessarily listen to you either, but i just want to tell you you're appreciated for saying this🖤
And who are the Nazis in this equation? In case you missed it, both parties are in nearly complete support of genocide.
The only other thing they both agree on to this degree is that insider trading should be legal for members of Congress.
NOTHING Biden has said or done in that direction comes close to balancing out the support he continues to give Israel.
And it’s easy to say you wouldn’t vote Stalin. Question is would you have voted FDR or Churchill?
This could almost be a John Scalzi plot line…
11 or 12 states.
Like, if both parties support the slaughter of your friends and family, you’re probably not gonna care who pulls the trigger
I was really thinking about election boycotts in places like Iran and Russia, where the result is a forgone conclusion and the only possibility to signal lack of support for the govt. is by not voting. But for that to have meaning *a lot* of people must stay away.
His way of sending a message is different from "boycotting" an election.
It's playing with fire if they're wrong about the opponent's vulnerabilities.
Generally I call that “helping them”
People should vote yes, but also there needs to be more political involvement, coops, union pushes, organizations, education.
That is what not voting lead to my country.
And things just been getting worse.
Fucking Milei in Argentine fucking loves the guy. Christo facist groups funding queer genocide in Africa. I could go on.
Without ranked choice voting, third party candidates are just justification to shame their voters back into the duopoly.
Voting for a third party at a lower level where they stand a chance of winning, sure. Doing what we can to get some sort of ranked choice voting, absolutely.
It's your vote, to use or discard as you choose. But vote or not vote, you're going to get a result. You can't sidestep it.
Ultimately, voting doesn't say "I approve of this one," it says "Of all the choices, this one is the best of them."
If the majority of people choose not to support the best choice, then that's on them cause I already did the best I could.
The double-edge of "the lesser of two evils" is that the lesser one is still evil, yes. But lesser is a better outcome than worse.
Learned the hard way that votes matter, and you aren't looking for a saint, but to reduce the damage.
But in the end it's better to settle for the best you can get.
Even if "best" amounts to "least-worst."
In the meantime, I have too many friends and family that would be hurt by my holding out for the perfect shade of unicorn.
If voting isn’t the most significant activism, then the same goes for abstaining.
Nobody says you have to EAT the cake but by god you’ve got to CHOOSE
Otherwise you aren’t the right candidate, and others would do better.
If you are the sitting leader, don’t do things that make your base not want to vote for you.
This isn’t difficult stuff.
1. You don't live in a swing state.
2. You'll vote in the downballot races even if you don't vote for the top of the ticket.
You weren't hostile at all. I just hope something changes your mind by November.
2. Of course. My background is in Democratic politics. I’m not someone who doesn’t believe in voting.
"If you choose not to decide,
You still have made a choice!"
In general, the candidate who (a) reflects my beliefs more than the others and (b) can win seems to be the best choice.
But making your beliefs known is something that can be done more effectively through protest and phone calls and support of groups...
The voters in Michigan (and elsewhere) who voted Uncommitted to send a message -- their message was heard more than the ones who didn't vote.
You're (we're) the ones that "earn" and "get" the vote, to express who would be better. Not using it hurts us all, but you're okay with that.
If the goal is to reduce or avoid as much harm as possible, sometimes it means actively voting for less harm even if it's *not less enough*.
Work to change the electoral system, and until then, move the game pieces by holding nose and voting for the wider common good. Otherwise we get strongmen.
Sometimes it's good to look at their responses and see if the issue's already been discussed, and the answers you're hoping to get have already been expressed.
In the UK, if you don't vote properly (e.g. by writing "they are all awful" on the paper) it is recorded as a "spoilt ballot" and the count of these are released at the same time as the count for each candidate.
Seriously, anyone pushing progressive ideas keeps getting shut down. Consistently.
Biden is now talking about border control. He shouldn't be. He should be hammering the right for their criminal nominee. It should be constant. Every quote. Basic, basic stuff.
And if all he was talking about was that...
Just being "against" isn't enough.
It's now 2024, news orgs are yellow journalism disconnected from fact, and I can't do Trump again.
Besides, if your vote was meaningless, why would several states try to pass voter restriction laws to make it harder and harder?
The message of voting is much more noticeable. The people who voted Uncommitted sent a clear message.
Beyond that, there are more ways to send a message than at the...
This is flawed thinking. And the flaw in this thinking is on elected Dems here.
However, that doesn't change the reality of what happens if you sit out the election.
Luckily, the messages being sent have been clearly moving Biden on the issue, if not as fast as we'd like. So I think that's a better avenue.
It was participation. And it sent its message far more clearly than if those voters had simply stayed home.
You might think the people who could win or lose based on whether people vote or don't would care about what they could do to gain votes or win back votes they lost.
But not voting -- which is what I was talking about -- doesn't function like a boycott, as I said. Among other things, it either doesn't work or puts the "company" out of business, rather than spurring change.
Voters communicating and politicians listening is not what I was referring...
-When you boycott a business, you're not giving a business your money, and getting a replacement from someone else instead.
-When you don't vote, you're giving up something you have, and you can't get a replacement anywhere else.
/s and i shouldn’t have to explain the basic concept of how refusin’ to participate in an oppressive system =/= consent to said oppressive system
There are ways to send messages. "Boycotting" is not an effective one.
If you want to change Biden's mind on things, though, there are better ways than a non-vote, which (if it has the desired effect) comes too late.
The people who voted Uncommitted weren't...
Voting Uncommitted got people's attention, though.
Those other things will impact them regardless of their holier than thou approach to given individuals or offices. Write-in ‘None of the Above’ if actually protesting. No proof of ‘boycott’ otherwise.
I dunno. I have opinions on how I'd like people to vote, but my main thrust here was how things function. Not voting sends a message, but if the message you want to send isn't apathy, it doesn't send what you want.
Machine politics suck but one party is persuadable and one party wants us dead.
And in case you missed it, we’re not even close to having a real primary. Add to which, the people who are using their power as voters right now are being derided and attacked by the media and mainstream Dems
If you legitimately don't care who wins, then yeah, do what you want.
And have some poutine for me.
Hard to see that message reaching an actual candidate.
Better to talk directly to politicians. That's an actual message. And conservatives contact their congress critters at more than a two or three to one ratio; direct pressure is clearer and focussed.
In the general, you just do the best you can with what you're given.
I wish they'd given up early, but sadly, they did not, and they got where they said they wanted to go and now they want to go further. And they're going to show up every election.
You're likely very correct Bob. People are fucking stupid and don't understand how social change works. It takes time and a lot of voting.
I do give a fuck what happens to my friends, family, colleagues and neighbors, and I don't want them (or me!) to suffer the consequences of another Trump presidency, so I'm not with you on that. I also think that, as bad as it's been for Gazans, it would be...
But non-voters are power in reserve for outsiders to tap into, and that’s a good thing.
Whatever money (within a certain amount) is spent during campain is given back to spender if they score at least 5% of votes. While it hurts small parties ->
We do have a system where, if a party gets above a certain percentage of the vote, they are recognized as a minor party with various advantage. So...
But if they're close to that line they aren't winning anything. It'd be more effective to try to boost their vote so they can be a thorn in the side of the larger parties. But even there, those votes won't...
There are a variety of voting systems we don’t have that would be better than the one we do have, and it’s worth working toward them.
[I don’t think one that would lead to re-running expensive national elections that would require time for new candidates to campaign would be…
If you want to fix the system (for values of 'fix' limited to the possible), you have to get people in who actually want to fix it.
Which is incredibly frustrating.
But as you said, you vote for the least bad option as much as you can and hope for small steps.
But certainly, "boycotting" the vote won't accomplish either.