- 6 minutes
I think things like voter suppression, access to information also weigh a lot heavier than some might think.
I’m also kind of wondering how they came up with this number of 11 million, if people are not politically motivated and activated but are still politically conscious enough to have priorities, there are systemic issues keeping them from voting. And especially at these large numbers, simply saying ‘well they should vote’ and being angry about them supposedly not voting won’t change a damn thing.
We don’t need to yell at people. We need to fucking strategize.
33 minutesI see everyone going to blaming parties or whatever but its like no one considers that they are just complacent. If people wanted they could fundamentally change the way they live their lives to make things better for everyone else and remarkably more difficult for themselves. Why they dont is self evident.
- 1 hour
Both candidates were pro war. War is the top polluting activity humans do. People chose not to vote last time because we had absolutely miserable candidate choices, an undemocratic primary, and formal war crimes support from our own party. Anyone who wags a finger after that shenanigans and talks about climate in isolation from the rest of it is missing the forest through the trees.
- 4 hours
Yeah, it’s a good thing both candidates were the same on every single issue, too, so there was literally no difference in picking between the fascist and the non-fascist. Fantastic job recognizing your duty to stick to one single issue where you feel they were the same!
- freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish3 hours
One thing you’ll eventually have to come to terms with is that it’s the government of the USA that is and has always been fascist and that the two parties aren’t going to stop the fascism that they both manage and benefit from. Biden had the Epstein files and did nothing. You think the voters are gonna stop fascism when the candidates are all fascists and fascist defenders?
- Pratai@piefed.caEnglish57 minutes
Americans act on convenience. Nothing more. Most Americans talk shit but won’t follow up with action. Also they won’t protest in any way if it comes at a sacrifice to this convenience.
They’ll shout from the rooftops at everyone about how Meta sucks ass. But will not deactivate their accounts.
They’ll whine and cry about the fascist administration but will not vote against it if they don’t like the person running against it.
They’ll protest in the streets knowing it’ll do nothing, to move the needle, but refuse to do something so simple as not pay their taxes which absolutly WILL move the needle)
Americans won’t sacrifice. They just like to be seen being opposed to the things others stand against. It’s all a show. They’ll say a lot of shit, but they aren’t worth the words they say.
ah yes. the best place to hear how it is to live in America is from…a Canadian.
it’s always a lemmy.ca user who’s vomiting this shit.
- Pratai@piefed.caEnglish58 minutes
Did I say I was a Canadian? I live in Seattle bud. And have lived in America my entire 54 years. I know what I’m talking about. Maybe put away the knee-jerk assumptions and address the actual points I made.
Ad hominem is childish. Don’t be childish.
- 5 hours
if clearly motivated people don’t want to vote for you, it’s not an indication that they should lower their standards, it’s an indication that you should have standards to begin with
it’s cute how liberals here are so resilient to reality. people don’t care for slow, steady, painfully incremental progress (if even that) when every summer is so much hotter than the last one.
- 4 hours
Incremental progress is better than actively working to make things worse, but y’know, stick to your guns and help make SURE things get worse. Good job!
i think you misunderstand
i’m not saying people shouldn’t vote (truthfully, i don’t care). i’m saying parties who want votes should have policies worth voting for.
y’all keep talking about how the “let’s not vote for the lesser evil because it’s still evil” voter strategy has lead to terrible results. why not talk about how the “let’s be the lesser evil instead of doing anything good that people would want to support” party strategy has lead to the same terrible results?
- 42 minutes
The time to make that change is before the general election.
Anytime you’re presented with two choices, take the less bad option. But if that’s the only time you bother to act, or even worse, if you don’t even act THEN to pick the lesser bad option, then you are one less vote against the worse, and therefore by your actions support it. But you already supported it if you weren’t fighting for better options.
“Well, I didn’t pick which restaurant to visit very well, and this restaurant only has moldy fruit or sandwiches made literally from shit. I don’t like either option, so I’m just gonna eat whatever they bring me”. Sure, it’s not a great analogy in the sense that picking a different restaurant is not so easy in the context of politics, but I think it makes the point - always choose the lesser bad option. I’d rather eat the moldy fruit (we’re assuming that we must eat something in this metaphor) than the literal shit. And then work harder to try and prevent us from going to this restaurant next time. But if you are presented with the two bad options and one is worse, not picking an option is fucking stupid.
It seems like you actually believe anyone who thought Harris was a bad candidate voted for Rump?
That’s so simple- Funkt4st1c@lemmy.worldEnglish2 hours
Or they just didnt vote, yes.
2024 was a colossal failure for months before the election. They gave trump legitimacy by backing down “Sleepy Joe” biden, but didnt do it quick enough to hold a primary.
Democrats are fighting on being “the other guy” but thats not an identity. Theres a reason people love mamdani so much, and its because he has values.
But what if they voted for Harris, while thinking she was a terrible candidate? Did that possibly not occur to you?
- 2 hours
It’s a two party system and you have three choices.
Vote A
Vote B
Don’t vote.
Not voting is still an action. It means either option is fine, otherwise you would have voted for a specific candidate
But what if they voted for Harris, while thinking she was a terrible candidate? Did that possibly not occur to you?
- 5 hours
I think a more interesting question would be, regardless of someone’s priorities, why they don’t vote.
- 4 hours
I know for a lot of people it’s A. Didn’t feel like their vote mattered, B. None of the candidates matched their desires, I.e. non of the above earned their vote, whether by not lining up on issues, or being perceived to only give stated values lip service, C. Voter suppression, whether that be inability to go vote because work/schedule, voter roll purges, voter eligibility being repressed due to cost of documents, no transportation access to polling place, etc, D. Being too burnt out to even paying attention to politics/voting; or some combination of the above.
- Manjushri@piefed.socialEnglish6 hours
Check any political thread here or elsewhere and you will hear a regular refrain of “both parties are the same” and “voting doesn’t matter because it’s all rigged!” A huge percentage of Americans have fallen for that line of bullshit and now don’t bother to vote at all no matter what they think is important. It’s a sad fact that propaganda works.
- freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish6 hours
The problem of low voter turnout precedes the Internet. Low voter turnout is a symptom of the problem, it is not the problem itself.
- 4 hours
Today I learned that propaganda isn’t older than the internet.
- 6 hours
It’s not simple enough to make that statement. You obviously get worse politicians when people don’t vote.
- freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish6 hours
Yeah, I don’t think that’s obvious at all. Voter turnout has very rarely been a deciding factor in elections, and the current analysis by researchers is that voter turnout doesn’t have partisan benefits. In essence, you get the same politicians regardless of voter turnout.
- 6 hours
An absolutely ridiculous thing for you to expect people to believe. So fucking transparent what you’re doing. Accelerationist bullshit.
- freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish6 hours
LOL. You have no idea what accelerationism is if you think that what I said is in any way related to accelerationism. You’re just regurgitating things you’ve heard without understanding. Here, do some reading:
https://www.uniteamerica.org/articles/report-most-americans-votes-dont-matter-in-deciding-elections
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/does-high-voter-turnout-help-one-party
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/forcing-people-vote-doesnt-change-outcome
- 3 hours
Bro, they’ve been told this many times, you think they care about definitions, lol?
- 6 hours
Yep, spot on. And you got downvoted for saying it so we know your comment struck a nerve with someone who says or believes that bullshit.
- 4 hours
Probably because both party do not care about climate, they should still at least vote for the green
- 4 hours
Oh yes, you can see by the voting records and what each party does with legislation to see they are exactly the same and both treat environmental issues exactly the same. I mean, if you ignore the voting records and what each party does, that is.
- 3 hours
Yes, I can see that Republicans are honest about not caring about climate and the Democrats pretend to care. You seem to want a one party system like China
- 46 minutes
We only have one non-fascist party at the moment, so yeah. But you say that like anyone who prefers one party over another wants a one-party state like they don’t prefer one party over the other.
Find me non-fascist Republicans who are standing up for human rights and I’ll give them a shot, sure.
- 8 hours
Uno reverse card
If so many people who care about the climate don’t vote, then why don’t politicians take a stronger line on the issue to appeal to them?
- 7 hours
Exactly.
The United States has a problem with voter suppression, and a history of blaming societal problems on individuals to make it look like individual people are responsible instead of the people in charge.
- 6 hours
No one is going to open a restaurant where the target market is “people who don’t go to restaurants”. If you don’t vote you don’t matter to politicians and that’s all there is to it.
- 6 hours
No one is going to open a restaurant where the target market is “people who don’t go to restaurants”.
???
When you open a restaurant, the only target market is people who don’t go to your restaurant. Looking into how to expand your business to people who don’t already go to restaurants is absolutely a valid line of inquiry that companies persue all the time. Maybe the reason they don’t eat out because it’s too expensive, and you can appeal to them with lower prices. Maybe the reason they don’t eat out is because they don’t know how good your food is, and you can address that with free samples. Maybe they have dietary restrictions and you can appeal to them by adding vegan or gluten free options. Restaurants, like any business, are constantly looking for ways to break into new sections of the market. So your analogy falls completely flat.
Look at, for example, Little Caesars which at least back when I was in school had cheap ass $5 pizzas, they tasted like shit but they were $5 so being a broke ass college student I ate there all the time when I might otherwise have not eaten out at all. And that’s why they focused on keeping the price low instead of making it actually good. Because at $5, even groceries wouldn’t be much cheaper.
Likewise, if a political party is uninterested in appealing to people who don’t already vote for them, it must mean that they’re satisfied with their current level of support. Which, considering the Dems lost the last election, doesn’t exactly seem to be working. And what, do you think you’ll have better luck trying, again, to appeal to “moderate” Republicans? Let me know how that goes, lol.
- 6 hours
People who don’t eat at restaurants at all are obviously not the same as people who don’t eat at a restaurant that doesn’t exist. You said you understood that concept but then spent the rest of your comment describing people who want to eat at restaurants.
- freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish3 hours
This is what your commitment to your narrative has done to you. It has made you believe that there is a category of people who don’t vote because that is what they prefer, and you’re so committed that you are willing to make nonsense arguments that posit the existence of people who eat food but specifically will not and never will eat food if it’s in a restaurant.
Nothing about your narrative is reasonable. Give people something they want and they will pursue it
- 5 hours
People who don’t eat at restaurants at all are obviously not the same as people who don’t eat at a restaurant that doesn’t exist.
Legitimately don’t understand this word salad.
You said you understood that concept but then spent the rest of your comment describing people who want to eat at restaurants.
Someone who doesn’t currently eat at restaurants might start eating at them if the restaurants find a way to appeal to them. That’s not a complicated concept.
If I’m vegan, and no restaurants in my area offer vegan options, then I am someone who doesn’t eat at restaurants at all. If a restaurant opens up that does offer vegan options, or if an existing restaurant adds a vegan option, then I might start eating at restaurants. Do you not understand this concept?
Likewise, someone who doesn’t vote might start voting if they’re appealed to. This is equally uncomplicated.
- freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish6 hours
Yeah, that’s not true at all. The hundreds of millions spent on voter mobilization, get out the vote, rock the vote, voter education, voter registration, and all attendant campaigns is such an obvious massive counter to your inispid narrative.
- 6 hours
The purpose of those programs is to increase turnout, not cater to the political leanings of likely non-voters. Dems don’t give a shit what those people want they just want them to vote because statistically they would vote for Dems. The issues important to those voters rarely come up which is exactly my point.
I don’t really expect a well reasoned response from someone going around saying things like “Europe can save Ukraine by disbanding NATO” though. Pull your head out of Putin’s ass and have your own thoughts.
- freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish6 hours
LOL. You’re fucking amazing. You came to the conclusion that voter turnout programs only exist because they want voters to vote for them but literally won’t do anything that those voters want? That’s your conclusion? You couldn’t reason your way out of a paper bag. Which makes sense because you think an American who has been raised by Americans in America and consumed all the same anti-Russian propaganda you have consumed our whole lives is somehow having someone else’s thoughts when they have thoughts that disagree with the propaganda you and I have both been raised on. You are doing the meme.
- 6 hours
If Dems primary concern is the will of their voters then why are they constantly doing things the majority of their voting base disagrees with? You’re acting like Dems know exactly what the people want when the central political problem in America for the last 15 years is that they either don’t know or don’t care.
Also, if your own thoughts are not Russian propaganda then why is what you’re saying matching Russian propaganda word-for-word? Disbanding NATO doesn’t help anyone but Russia and somewhere in that brain of yours you know that. You’re twisting words to make unreasonable things sound reasonable on both of these issues
- 5 hours
Disbanding NATO doesn’t help anyone but Russia and somewhere in that brain of yours you know that.
Pretty sure it would’ve helped the Libyans if the “defensive” alliance that waged an offensive war on them didn’t exist.
NATO is a tool of neocolonialism and there are countless neocolonies around the world that it harms. Even if it were “defensive” (which it absolutely isn’t) it maintains an oppressive status quo over the global majority and gives member states the ability to attack wantonly, without fear of retaliation.
- freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish5 hours
Oh, sorry, so you’re saying Dems are constantly doing things their voting base disagrees with? So then why should people vote for them? You’re not making a strong argument for your position there.
You think Russian propaganda is the only source of anti-NATO sentiment in the entire world? Have you heard of Heusinger? Are you aware of the controversial decisions to staff NATO with Nazi officers? Heusinger was never even tried at Nuremberg.
- 8 hours
Neither party campaign’s on climate policy so the problem is the party, not the voter.
- 7 hours
Yeah but it’s peak lib to blame voters for not voting hard enough, instead of demanding the bare minimum from those in power.
SMH
- 7 hours
Not sure where you saw that but it’s actually central to the DNC platform.
Personally, I think this is more of a media diet issue. Climate policy isn’t very engagement-baitey so the Social media algorithms don’t push it.
- 4 hours
Platforms are not the problem, the problem is that most politicians do not really believe in implementing them
- 4 hours
Biden forced rail-workers - who were striking for safer conditions - back to work. Less than a year later, a train derailment caused a massive chemical spill is Palestine, Ohio.
- 7 hours
Listen, existential threats are important and all, but there’s a trans kid who wants to play soccer, and I vaguely remember something about a tan suit, so… I think I’ll just sit this one out - surely my countrymen can be trusted to make the right decision!
Gotta have standards, ya know?
- 5 hours
The GOP brand is practically solid gold. No matter how shitty their members keep being, the average American voter will still see the party as reasonable and worthy of power. Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states but ask a neolib about a past republican government and they will talk about them like they were the only voice of reason. Complete disregard for the fact all of them left beind a fucking mess in lock step with their parties destructive principles and policy.
- 6 hours
You can really tell it’s election season, every thread on 4chan and reddit is about trans people in sports. Bots heavily pushing it.
- 7 hours
You won’t be seeing much in the way of “climate change” messaging this time around because it’s been rolled into “reducing energy costs” messaging. Since LCOEs for solar and wind have fallen below natural gas plants, which were previously the cheapest if you ignored the SCC, politicians have decided to rebrand. Campaigning on cutting energy costs polls much better when the economy is in poor shape so this is more effective.
It’s also worth noting that the last time that Democrats controlled the legislature and the executive they took substantial action;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act#Energy_and_climate_change
- 8 hours
Because the Democrats also have a terrible climate policy?
- 7 hours
They have reasonably positive policy, they just are as usual terrible at explaining activity.
The Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act had quite a bit of green incentives for regular people, and it created widespread solar and non-fossil-fuel home improvements that did (in my area at least) translate to a lot of green tech being installed, not just on-paper policy.
The GOP and Trump especially are irrationally hostile to green tech, and there are plenty of examples why they’re materially worse - paying again just to cancel an already-paid-for wind farm project for example.
So this isn’t really a “both sides suck” problem. One side has a slightly positive policy that could be a lot better. One side is in a psychotic delusional fugue and actively trying to destroy the planet.
- freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish6 hours
Obama literally led the largest expansion of fossil fuel extraction in the history of the US.
- 8 hours
But… But… Al Gore?
Wait. They have a policy? Maybe the progressive wing, but that’s too small for an official policy.
- 6 hours
They were terrible but I’d take a C- over the current F just saying. Not voting won’t make them care more about climate change, hearing it in primaries from engaged voting populace is what dictates policy. It’s why boomers had so much sway because they know they’ll vote.
- 4 hours
When you are grading yourself and give yourself a C- and then talk about how thats good enough to get people off their couch in an election, then go ahead and add ‘misunderstanding how to compete in an election’ to your list of problems.
- 3 hours
Didn’t say it was good enough. Said it was better, why would moving in the direction I don’t want help, I said both, you seem be saying neither.
- freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish2 hours
Because minor concessions are obvious pandering without real benefit. Give incentives to buy EVs, sure, go for it. But if you expand the military and fossil fuel extraction and then launch wars where you’re dropping bombs all over the world it doesn’t really matter how many tax breaks you give to EV buyers.
- 2 hours
As apposed to dropping even more bombs and not being any incentives, and like I said you don’t stop there, that’s the start, you still protest, you still advocate for direct action. One does not proclude the other
- freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish41 minutes
Historically, neither party has been a fewer bombs kind of party, and both parties have had their moments of conservation and environmental destruction, and their moments of expanding rights and destroying them.
I do understand the idea of a plurality of strategies. I just think that people need to understand which strategies actually have effects. Allowing people to believe in fairy tales is a recipe for disempowerment. Much like praying for a cancer cure, voting is one of those things that makes you feel better about yourself without actually achieving anything
There are material differences between the parties, pretending their policy is the exact same isn’t enlightenment it’s delusion. People should hold specifically institutional democrats accountable for stifling progress I’m with you there but the only thing not voting ever got us was less time to work with and worse conditions to do it in.
- 5 hours
We got public healthcare in Canada through direct political action, respectfully there is room for both strategies.
- 6 hours
Maybe if people championed the good Democrats instead of spreading bullshit meant to encourage not voting and votes for Russian assets, Democrats would start getting better overall. Nah we should probably just go full tankie on this shit and pretend to be surprised when that doesn’t help anything.
- 5 hours
As an anarchist you people need to stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a “tankie” you’ve made it absolutely meaningless.
- 8 hours
I did vote so this isn’t my personal opinion. I’ve been told many times it’s “voting for the lesser of two evils, they’re both evil and I don’t agree with either.” There’s no real sense of choice. I can see it. It very much feels like that South Park episode where they have to vote for the school mascot. Do you want it to be a Giant Douche or, a Turd Sandwich? And then at the end it was all for nothing because they don’t change their mascot so it was all pointless.
Edit: you guys can call me stupid all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that I’ve heard this from coworkers and family repeatedly. I did vote. In fact, I’ve already voted in my primaries. The question was “why don’t people vote?” I gave the answer of why I personally have been told by people they don’t vote. Not liking my answer doesn’t change the reality of it. I work in blue collar work. It’s a very common view in my area. Or, they are pro Trump.
My personal opinion on why they don’t vote or, don’t vote in favor of things they support, they generally don’t want to take the time to educate themselves. And for others, they don’t want to feel responsible for voting when their candidate turns out to be nothing like they promised.
- 9 hours
Hey heads up the “both sides” argument makes anyone who says it sound fantastically silly and at worse stupid.
- 8 hours
The question was “why don’t they vote like it?” I answered the question from what I’ve been told by multiple coworkers and family. I didn’t say, “this is my opinion.” In fact, I said this is not my opinion and I did vote. Just because you don’t like the answer, doesn’t mean a lot of people don’t believe that. I think it’s a terrible argument personally however, the question didn’t ask my opinion, it was asking why those people don’t vote like it. I simply shared what has been told directly to me by the people who refuse to vote.
- 8 hours
Most people that say both side AND still vote, almost never vote in primaries. Many don’t even know what they are.
- 8 hours
That’s a valid point too. Most of the people who have given me “both parties suck” as a reason for not voting are not exactly the type of people who care to educate themselves on politics. I used to try to teach them but, I quickly learned they don’t want to know. They just want to complain and do nothing unfortunately.
- 7 hours
I strongly disagree. I certainly understand why this idea has risen to the forefront, but I find this mentality to be far more obtuse than attempting to flesh out the nuance of a situation. Assessing both sides of an argument is of utmost importance. Qualifying the pursuit of more accurate information as “stupid” is peak irony.
I know, the internet is full of bots and rabble rousers. No doubt they are directed at divisive issues and engage in “both sides” messaging to cast doubt on popular sentiment and advance some propaganda. This is annoying and a real problem, but the wholesale rejection of valid observation or analysis, with reactive, myopic aphorisms is precisely the type of response that allows propaganda to continue its insidious spread.
An evident tactic of propagandists is to flood the zone with emotional binaries. It seeds chaos, disrupts chain of thought, and invokes group selection posturing. I believe the “smart/dumb” binary to be one of the most powerful, and engaging with it, even if one thinks they are on the right “side”, disrupts and obfuscates the pursuit of truth.
- 8 hours
I too have heard that argument but unfortunately those are usually the people who won’t see reason. I rarely try to argue with them unless they express some type of will to learn or seem like they’re questioning their beliefs. Some people just like to complain and refuse to help themselves, sad but true.
The real solution would be having more than 2 parties. I mean, TECHNICALLY we do but not really.
The real solution would be having more than 2 parties. I mean, TECHNICALLY we do but not really.
You are going to have to fundamentally change the way we vote and how we count them. In a single-choice-vote, plurality system it will mathematically trend toward having exactly two viable choices, no matter how many are allowed on the ballot.
Mixed-member proportional would probably work well for the House and Senate, and some judicial/executive positions. Where that’s not tenable (President, Governor, etc.) a Condorcet Method should be employed.
- 8 hours
I believe the system is fundamentally broken but I still participate because you can’t fix it by doing nothing. But yes, my coworkers are not people who’s opinions will be changed by fact and reason. They’re also the same people who say, “facts don’t care about your feelings.” Imagine that. But then they get all bent out of shape about how “no one is doing anything about this!” but then refuse to vote. My guy, you’re not doing anything either!
- 8 hours
There’s a very good reason for the sentiment and why people feel such a sense of dejection and apathy. Then it gets met with smug ripostes like the “bOtH sIdEs” spongetext shit or plain mockery as if it’s something that just appeared out of nowhere.
It’s just typical Democrat arrogance assuming that they are entitled to peoples votes without having to offer any material change, it also ties into why progressive and leftist candidates have to struggle to break through because they’re fighting their own party first and foremost before they even get to fighting Republicans.
- 8 hours
Yeah, I can honestly empathize with the people who believe this. Everything feels exhausting, overwhelming, and like nothing will ever change. Unfortunately for the people of that opinion though, NOT voting will ensure nothing changes. Or rather, that you had no hand in changing anything. Because everything will change eventually for good or bad.
- freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish6 hours
Not even that is true. Women fought for the right to vote without voting and they won. Black people fought for the right to vote without voting and they won. Voting doesn’t change anything, it turns out. What changes things is when politicians writ large stand to lose something bigger than their seat, like control over society.
- 4 hours
Voting matters. So does fighting for rights. It’s not one or the other.
- 8 hours
That’s so defeatist. It makes you feel like you’re smart by saying that and thinking you’re privy to something but it’s just totally passive and does nothing. If all the people who said that actually organized and made a plan, there would be a sizable number of people who could actually make a difference.
- 8 hours
Did you even read what I wrote? This is not my opinion, this is what I have been told. I don’t think this is correct and that these people are honestly just being lazy and don’t want to take responsibility for their vote.
- 7 hours
No shit, my response was in reference to the people you were referring to. Did you take the “you” part as literal? I was agreeing with you. Take it down a notch with the defensiveness.
