“If those people wanted food to eat they should have earned it, otherwise it’s not my problem”
That makes about as much sense as shifting the conversation into terms of some politician having to “earn your vote” and otherwise it’s not your problem what happens.
If Gavin Newsom is running against Hitler, it’s kind of important to vote for Newsom, whether or not he has “earned your vote.”
If you want to know the non-toxic way of executing this approach, Ralph Nader has written an excellent book about how to put pressure on people in power and what he believes is the way forward out of the horror we find in our current political system (even predating the current horror). Basically, you pressure them to adopt specific policies by forming up into a bloc with other voters and refusing to vote unless some specific policy change you want to see happens. The advantages this has over staying home and saying “they haven’t earned it” include:
It is visible to the politicians
It is coordinated in a way that’s credible
It is productive of positive change instead of making things even worse
There are a lot of other things in addition obviously, but if you’re going to “protest vote,” that is the way I would recommend to do it.
From my perspective (and without reading the book), what Ralph Nader is advocating for isn’t enough in the present day.
Clearly, the change we need in America is systemic - getting an establishment neoliberal (who is likely to run as a moderate) to budge on specific policy changes is insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country.
I believe that it is in the spirit of democracy to encourage others to vote however they want to - that includes forming voting blocs and doing exactly what you are shedding light to.
I feel that in a democracy, it is desirable for candidates to actively be making attempts to appeal to potential voters and actively attempting to represent their interests; instead of running on effectively maintaining the broken status quo - with minor changes.
From my perspective (and without reading the book), Ralph Nader is promoting very ineffectual action.
His group basically created the Freedom of Information Act, Clean Water Act, OSHA, Whistleblower Protection Act, among other things.
Is that enough? Fuck no, you’re right about that. But I feel like if we had a few hundred people doing that level of change, we would actually be able to do some of these things like getting money out of politics that are actually what’s needed.
getting an establishment neoliberal (who is likely to run as a moderate) to budge on specific policy changes is frankly insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country.
Okay. I mean, I completely agree with that statement, sure. Is refusing to vote for that same neoliberal sufficient action to change our trajectory as a country? Seems like that is even more ineffectual, if that’s the metric.
His group basically created the Freedom of Information Act, Clean Water Act, OSHA, Whistleblower Protection Act, among other things.
Which are all unfortunately not quite as effective in practice as they were intended to be, but you make a valid point regardless. These things are obviously desirable developments and are effectual - hence my edit to the part you quoted before I saw your response (ineffectual -> what Ralph Nader is advocating for isn’t enough in the present day).
But I feel like if we had a few hundred people doing that level of change, we would actually be able to do some of these things like getting money out of politics that are actually what’s needed.
I’d like to see that happen and I would appreciate the strategy and organization of such grassroots initiatives.
Is refusing to vote for that same neoliberal sufficient action to change our trajectory as a country? Seems like that is even more ineffectual, if that’s the metric.
I think it’s desirable that candidates be pressured to really dig deep to be the leader we need and run on that - especially years out from an election.
I feel that lesser evil rhetoric is undesirable, unnecessary, and is part of the reason why we have the gun to our heads. Vote for the status quo or something very close to it - or get Hitler. It doesn’t feel like democracy to me.
As the other commenter suggested, state-level electoral reform in blue states (such as California) could be enacted so voters are free to vote for whoever they want without spoiling. It’d be a massive step in the right direction and it’d likely get more people to turn out to the voting booths.
Is refusing to vote for that same neoliberal sufficient action to change our trajectory as a country? Seems like that is even more ineffectual, if that’s the metric.
I think it’s desirable that candidates be pressured to really dig deep to be the leader we need and run on that - especially years out from an election.
Yes. That’s why I specifically proposed a way of doing it that might be effective. No idea why you are lecturing me about how important it is.
I feel that lesser evil rhetoric is undesirable, unnecessary, and is part of the reason why we have the gun to our heads.
I feel that “lesser evil isn’t a valid argument” rhetoric is part of how we got ourselves in the current screaming disaster, honestly.
How someone could be living in the year of our lord 2025 and still be out here going “OH LET’S NOT HEAR THAT TIRED OLD CHESTNUT OF ‘LESSER EVIL’” is beyond me…
I’m just saying that “HOW DARE YOU VOTE” is taking us backwards, not forwards. Read back my original message. I’m actually giving my take on how it is that you might be able to better force the politicians in power to better represent the will of the people by threatening them to lose elections if they don’t.
It didn’t matter. You still gave me the whole script about how I was blah blah blah for suggesting that we have to vote for blah blah blah.
And I’m not saying that at all. Everybody is free to vote or not vote however they wish as far as I’m concerned.
It didn’t matter.
And I agreed with your suggestion for voting blocs and said I’d appreciate that sort of action. I disagreed with your advocacy for lesser evil rhetoric, unless I’m misunderstanding your position. I believe that it kills discourse and makes unpopular candidates run on status quo policy confidently.
You still gave me the whole script
There was no script. I appreciate you engaging. You are free to disagree with my perspective and see things however you wish.
How someone could be living in the year of our lord 2025 and still be out here going “OH LET’S NOT HEAR THAT TIRED OLD CHESTNUT OF ‘LESSER EVIL’” is beyond me…
Because it’s clear that “lesser evil” has hit a wall. It’s not an effective strategy and hasn’t been for the past three election cycles. Biden only got in by a hair, and that took promising a bunch of stuff he never had any intention of actually doing.
Obviously a better candidate would be better, but by the time the general election arrives you only get three choices.
A neoliberal who won’t do enough to actually fix systemic problems and will continue to pamper the corporate class at the expense of the rest of us.
A Fascist who will do the above while also actively pushing authoritarian policy, actively seek to villainize the most vulnerable among us, and actively try to normalize putting anyone who disagrees in concentration camps.
Any vote for neither of the above that has no chance of actually winning the election and is as effective at enacting change as not voting at all.
Right now is absolutely the time to try to push forward the better candidate. Uplift the better option than the neoliberal, get active in the primary campaign, be heard now, because if you wait until the general election it’s too late. Our goal should be to replace the neoliberal on the big ticket. I do not like Gavin Newsome, I do not want him to be president. He has shown his true colors more than a few times. If it comes down to it, though, I’ll vote for whoever isn’t part of the MAGA-Nazi authoritarian regime, because if you don’t pick the lesser evil, you get the greater evil, and they sure as shit won’t be better than the one that just wasn’t good enough.
I’m sure there are a lot of people right now holding their heads up in pride about how they voted for whatever third party option would have been better than Harris, but their pride and conviction to their ideals doesn’t help the people being rounded up by the secret police and sent to the camps. We can’t always fix everything all at once, but that’s no excuse to allow the most egregious evil to run rampant until the perfect solution comes along.
I’m not blaming voters for having a red line on genocide in the 2024 election. Kamala Harris was free to respond to those concerns. I don’t think anybody besides MAGA was happy about what happened during and after the 2024 election.
In our current system, we need to hold candidates and our elected officials accountable for not pushing electoral reform - even on the state-level. How many more decades before it’s on the table? I believe we need a voting system that does not have spoilers.
The blame game that arises every time Democrats lose after not trying to win the election has gotten stale. Voters are not solely responsible for candidates not representing them and choosing to represent corporations over everyone else.
If Gavin Newsom is running against Hitler, it’s kind of important to vote for Newsom, whether or not he has “earned your vote.”
Your country would vote for Hitler, if he said the right things. That’s what he did to gain power in Germany.
This “we’re desperate, just vote for my candidate, nothing matters, it’s the only option we got” is how they do politics in authoritarian countries. And the candidate turns out to be a controlled opposition, destined to lose.
People need do more than the NPC in a RPG saying “just vote” and be done with their responsibility.
Also, spare us the sanctimonious bullcrap. This isn’t reddit.
If you feel the need to run an uninspiring candidate against a fascist that inspires his base, you’re not giving your all against fascism. Bring in someone who can inspire voters, rather than “second worst by as narrow a margin as we think we can get away with.”
Or admit that you would prefer second worst even if it means losing to hitler.
If you feel the need to run an uninspiring candidate against a fascist that inspires his base, you’re not giving your all against fascism. Bring in someone who can inspire voters, rather than “second worst by as narrow a margin as we think we can get away with.”
Yeah, true that. I don’t even like Gavin Newsom, that’s why I was offering a more credible way to pressure him to be better on particular issues if we do wind up in that awful situation where it’s Newsom vs. JD Vance or some stupid decision like that.
Or admit that you would prefer second worst even if it means losing to hitler.
I like how a particular type of commenter likes to make up total nonsense that no one is saying, and then throws down a challenge to “admit that” instead of… IDK, more or less any other way of engaging lol.
that’s why I was offering a more credible way to pressure him to be better
We saw how such pressure worked out with harris. Anyone who said that democrats had no business supporting genocide was assumed to be a tankie/russian/chinese/child/shill/republican/trumper/bot or whatever category was convenient for genocide supporting centrists use to dismiss people they hate for being to the left of netanyahu.
Any comments on Cumo running as a spoiler candidate to the democratic primary winner in the NYC mayoral race?
There is time to implement electoral reform in blue states so people are free to vote how they want. Why arent the democrats making this a priority?
After all, every election since before I was born in have heard blue conservatives drone on and on about the spoiler effect and 3rd parties. Yet they refused to fix the problem, even in states fully under their control.
Pass electoral reform in blue states, let there be a competition on who can beat the Republicans the best. Enable the democracy democrats claim to support.
The democratic party is not more important then the United States of America.
Truly we deserve Donald Trump if democrats still prioritize their power over defeating the republicans. I hope you can figure this out before its to late.
Yeah. It was a different time. I think I traded votes with someone in a red state, so that I voted for Gore where it mattered and he got to vote for Nader to build up the total for Nader which was important to me.
I suppose, although watching the Lemmy youth piss away their votes makes me think we were just stupid and high. Of course we didn’t think the SCOTUS would stop democracy back then, or that everyone would let them.
Gavin Newsom is free to earn my vote? I don’t see how your question is relevant - the election is years out.
“If those people wanted food to eat they should have earned it, otherwise it’s not my problem”
That makes about as much sense as shifting the conversation into terms of some politician having to “earn your vote” and otherwise it’s not your problem what happens.
If Gavin Newsom is running against Hitler, it’s kind of important to vote for Newsom, whether or not he has “earned your vote.”
If you want to know the non-toxic way of executing this approach, Ralph Nader has written an excellent book about how to put pressure on people in power and what he believes is the way forward out of the horror we find in our current political system (even predating the current horror). Basically, you pressure them to adopt specific policies by forming up into a bloc with other voters and refusing to vote unless some specific policy change you want to see happens. The advantages this has over staying home and saying “they haven’t earned it” include:
There are a lot of other things in addition obviously, but if you’re going to “protest vote,” that is the way I would recommend to do it.
From my perspective (and without reading the book), what Ralph Nader is advocating for isn’t enough in the present day.
Clearly, the change we need in America is systemic - getting an establishment neoliberal (who is likely to run as a moderate) to budge on specific policy changes is insufficient action to change our trajectory as a country.
I believe that it is in the spirit of democracy to encourage others to vote however they want to - that includes forming voting blocs and doing exactly what you are shedding light to.
I feel that in a democracy, it is desirable for candidates to actively be making attempts to appeal to potential voters and actively attempting to represent their interests; instead of running on effectively maintaining the broken status quo - with minor changes.
His group basically created the Freedom of Information Act, Clean Water Act, OSHA, Whistleblower Protection Act, among other things.
Is that enough? Fuck no, you’re right about that. But I feel like if we had a few hundred people doing that level of change, we would actually be able to do some of these things like getting money out of politics that are actually what’s needed.
Okay. I mean, I completely agree with that statement, sure. Is refusing to vote for that same neoliberal sufficient action to change our trajectory as a country? Seems like that is even more ineffectual, if that’s the metric.
Which are all unfortunately not quite as effective in practice as they were intended to be, but you make a valid point regardless. These things are obviously desirable developments and are effectual - hence my edit to the part you quoted before I saw your response (ineffectual -> what Ralph Nader is advocating for isn’t enough in the present day).
I’d like to see that happen and I would appreciate the strategy and organization of such grassroots initiatives.
I think it’s desirable that candidates be pressured to really dig deep to be the leader we need and run on that - especially years out from an election.
I feel that lesser evil rhetoric is undesirable, unnecessary, and is part of the reason why we have the gun to our heads. Vote for the status quo or something very close to it - or get Hitler. It doesn’t feel like democracy to me.
As the other commenter suggested, state-level electoral reform in blue states (such as California) could be enacted so voters are free to vote for whoever they want without spoiling. It’d be a massive step in the right direction and it’d likely get more people to turn out to the voting booths.
Yes. That’s why I specifically proposed a way of doing it that might be effective. No idea why you are lecturing me about how important it is.
I feel that “lesser evil isn’t a valid argument” rhetoric is part of how we got ourselves in the current screaming disaster, honestly.
How someone could be living in the year of our lord 2025 and still be out here going “OH LET’S NOT HEAR THAT TIRED OLD CHESTNUT OF ‘LESSER EVIL’” is beyond me…
In 2020, we elected the lesser evil, a self-proclaimed Zionist, who ended up aiding in the genocide of an occupied people.
If the lesser evil is aiding in modern atrocities that you and I absolutely cannot fathom living through, what the fuck are we doing as a society?
Not enough, apparently.
I’m just saying that “HOW DARE YOU VOTE” is taking us backwards, not forwards. Read back my original message. I’m actually giving my take on how it is that you might be able to better force the politicians in power to better represent the will of the people by threatening them to lose elections if they don’t.
It didn’t matter. You still gave me the whole script about how I was blah blah blah for suggesting that we have to vote for blah blah blah.
Whatever man
And I’m not saying that at all. Everybody is free to vote or not vote however they wish as far as I’m concerned.
And I agreed with your suggestion for voting blocs and said I’d appreciate that sort of action. I disagreed with your advocacy for lesser evil rhetoric, unless I’m misunderstanding your position. I believe that it kills discourse and makes unpopular candidates run on status quo policy confidently.
There was no script. I appreciate you engaging. You are free to disagree with my perspective and see things however you wish.
Because it’s clear that “lesser evil” has hit a wall. It’s not an effective strategy and hasn’t been for the past three election cycles. Biden only got in by a hair, and that took promising a bunch of stuff he never had any intention of actually doing.
Obviously a better candidate would be better, but by the time the general election arrives you only get three choices.
Right now is absolutely the time to try to push forward the better candidate. Uplift the better option than the neoliberal, get active in the primary campaign, be heard now, because if you wait until the general election it’s too late. Our goal should be to replace the neoliberal on the big ticket. I do not like Gavin Newsome, I do not want him to be president. He has shown his true colors more than a few times. If it comes down to it, though, I’ll vote for whoever isn’t part of the MAGA-Nazi authoritarian regime, because if you don’t pick the lesser evil, you get the greater evil, and they sure as shit won’t be better than the one that just wasn’t good enough.
I’m sure there are a lot of people right now holding their heads up in pride about how they voted for whatever third party option would have been better than Harris, but their pride and conviction to their ideals doesn’t help the people being rounded up by the secret police and sent to the camps. We can’t always fix everything all at once, but that’s no excuse to allow the most egregious evil to run rampant until the perfect solution comes along.
I’m not blaming voters for having a red line on genocide in the 2024 election. Kamala Harris was free to respond to those concerns. I don’t think anybody besides MAGA was happy about what happened during and after the 2024 election.
In our current system, we need to hold candidates and our elected officials accountable for not pushing electoral reform - even on the state-level. How many more decades before it’s on the table? I believe we need a voting system that does not have spoilers.
The blame game that arises every time Democrats lose after not trying to win the election has gotten stale. Voters are not solely responsible for candidates not representing them and choosing to represent corporations over everyone else.
I’d literaly rather vote for Hitler than Trump.
At least Hitler cared about the environment, right? Even if he thought it should only be preserved for Aryans to enjoy.
Your country would vote for Hitler, if he said the right things. That’s what he did to gain power in Germany.
This “we’re desperate, just vote for my candidate, nothing matters, it’s the only option we got” is how they do politics in authoritarian countries. And the candidate turns out to be a controlled opposition, destined to lose.
People need do more than the NPC in a RPG saying “just vote” and be done with their responsibility.
Also, spare us the sanctimonious bullcrap. This isn’t reddit.
“Just vote” is kind of an election day strategy.
The whole part where the actual work happens to put a decent person on the ballot instead of corporate drone n+1 is right now!
If you feel the need to disagree or lecture against the idea of voting against Hitler in an election, I’m not sure what to tell you lol
If you feel the need to run an uninspiring candidate against a fascist that inspires his base, you’re not giving your all against fascism. Bring in someone who can inspire voters, rather than “second worst by as narrow a margin as we think we can get away with.”
Or admit that you would prefer second worst even if it means losing to hitler.
Yeah, true that. I don’t even like Gavin Newsom, that’s why I was offering a more credible way to pressure him to be better on particular issues if we do wind up in that awful situation where it’s Newsom vs. JD Vance or some stupid decision like that.
I like how a particular type of commenter likes to make up total nonsense that no one is saying, and then throws down a challenge to “admit that” instead of… IDK, more or less any other way of engaging lol.
We saw how such pressure worked out with harris. Anyone who said that democrats had no business supporting genocide was assumed to be a tankie/russian/chinese/child/shill/republican/trumper/bot or whatever category was convenient for genocide supporting centrists use to dismiss people they hate for being to the left of netanyahu.
I don’t know what I expected, replying to that comment lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA
I say genocide is bad, and you call me alt-right for saying it. Thank you for the absolutely perfect illustration of exactly what I was talking about.
Any comments on Cumo running as a spoiler candidate to the democratic primary winner in the NYC mayoral race?
There is time to implement electoral reform in blue states so people are free to vote how they want. Why arent the democrats making this a priority?
After all, every election since before I was born in have heard blue conservatives drone on and on about the spoiler effect and 3rd parties. Yet they refused to fix the problem, even in states fully under their control.
Pass electoral reform in blue states, let there be a competition on who can beat the Republicans the best. Enable the democracy democrats claim to support.
The democratic party is not more important then the United States of America.
Electoral Reform Videos
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems
STAR voting
Alternative vote
Ranked Choice voting
Range Voting
Single Transferable Vote
Mixed Member Proportional representation
Truly we deserve Donald Trump if democrats still prioritize their power over defeating the republicans. I hope you can figure this out before its to late.
Cuomo’s a sack of shit. NY Dem playas are the three-headed mutant extraterrestrial cousins of my local dems. All my homies support Mamdani.
That’s funny. My friend threw his vote away on Nader in 2000. Not that Scalia would have finished counting them.
Yeah. It was a different time. I think I traded votes with someone in a red state, so that I voted for Gore where it mattered and he got to vote for Nader to build up the total for Nader which was important to me.
It was a more innocent time TBH
I suppose, although watching the Lemmy youth piss away their votes makes me think we were just stupid and high. Of course we didn’t think the SCOTUS would stop democracy back then, or that everyone would let them.
I don’t think this country has the structural elements in its society to maintain democracy, honestly.
It is sad. I don’t know what to do.