Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

bloodrose wrote

In California elections, we vote on (some) actual laws. In our last election, 7,181,116 Californians voted that EMT workers (ambulance drivers/paramedics) who work for private companies should have no lunch break. That's 7 million assholes. So, yeah, they should be held accountable. Fuck them.

6

Freux OP wrote

Self-entitled assholes, they would probably flip their shit if they would lose their own lunch break.

4

selver wrote (edited )

Your vote is mathematically negligible, it has literally zero impact. So vote, don't vote, vote for whoever you like, it doesn't matter.

Your chances of winning the lottery are far higher than the chances of your vote mattering at all.

The Case Against Voting

4

Freux OP wrote

I agree that it's useless and I would argue that it is also harmful. The question was about people that vote moralising those who don't. What's your thought on that?

4

alex wrote

i’d say voters are absolutely accountable for suffering same as non-voters. i don’t vote because i have to live with myself, but i don’t think mass non-voting is gonna get the state to suddenly pack it in and close up.

4

Freux OP wrote

If I understand, you are saying that non-voters are to blame as much as voters, can you elaborate?

Mass non-voting will at least statistically show that the population doesn't want to be governed, therefore any ruler would be illigitimate. I'm not sure of what that would mean but surely not the status quo.

2

alex wrote

i shouldn’t’ve said “same.” if you’re a voter i’d say you’re more responsible because you’ve legitimized the state and its leaders, if you’re a non-voter you may be partially to blame depending on what you do or believe in outside of refusal to vote.

i agree with you wholeheartedly though that a ruler would be illegitimate if a large population didn’t vote.

2

Freux OP wrote

But then that just mean that non-voters are to blame for whatever else they do or don't. It has nothing to do with elections.

1

alex wrote

that’s a good point and so i agree with you. you’ve changed my mind

2

rot wrote

voting in general is bullshit. I still maintain that local elections can be impacted however and its not a total waste to vote in them. National wide elections are bullshit.

As for voting as a means of decision making I'm not a fan of non-consensus reaching votes.

3

conseil wrote

I tend to just vote for the most socialist person I can to help them get a better platform, but if there's nobody like that I just don't vote.

There's also often ballot measures during more major elections, which I always vote on because they directly impact people's lives.

3

HexNash wrote (edited )

Short answer: I wouldn't say non-voters are "accountable", but it’s a bad strategy in competitive races because someone is almost certainly going to take over those offices anyways.

Long answer: Maintaining that voters are responsible for anything other than deciding which of usually two people get into office (and that's only if there is even a competitive race) is intellectually bankrupt and just serves to push the most vulnerable of us under the bus. Voting isn't some sacred ritual that means you are endorsing whoever you vote for; it's something you can do within a shitty system to hopefully get the lesser of evils in an office that is going to be occupied anyways. I live in Ohio where we're about to become the most restrictive state when it comes to abortion access, and that is something that simply wouldn't happen if we had a Democrat-controlled legislative or executive branch. I see no merit in actively dissuading people against voting, especially when we have a first-past-the-post, single-winner district, gerrymandered-to-hell system that has nothing to do with accurate representation whatsoever. There is nothing contradictory about making small tactical decisions within an oppressive system while working to destroy it from the outside -- that's literally just using all strategies available, and we do worse every fucking day just to not starve to death under capitalism.

3

Freux OP wrote

You partake in the voting system so you legitimise it, doesn't matter if the lesser evil win, people still suffer through war and/or exploitation (inside and outside your country) because of that lesser evil. The minority that you "protect" in your country will still be a target of war and exploitation in others by imperialism. Natives get all the shit regardless on who is in power, and it's their land, that's like a double fuck you to them.

2

this_one wrote

Natives get all the shit regardless on who is in power

Exactly. So there's no point not voting.

2

Freux OP wrote

Don't you feel accountable to maintain that oppression by voting for a party?

1

this_one wrote

Do you mean 'accountable for maintaining' or 'obliged to maintain'?

1

Freux OP wrote

Accountable for maintaining, sorry I wasn't clear.

2

this_one wrote

I do, but personally, I'd feel equally accountable if I didn't vote.

1

Freux OP wrote

So if you don't vote you feel like you are hurting minorities but if you vote you also feel guilty of "supporting" the lesser evil. So I assume you vote because for you, it's the less damaging?

2

this_one wrote

Pretty much, yeah. I think of voting as a (very) small action to make the world slightly less shitty. The only reason I would ever not vote is if there was a better action I could be taking to make the world less shitty, but I seem to have more than enough time to do those things and vote.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

2

Freux OP wrote

"To say I don't love the American electoral system would be an incredible understatement. However, I think that voting beats the alternative"

-reddit user/resurgenagain

"Do you also think that throwing one's self off a cliff beats the alternative?"

-reddit user/ComradeThoth

Hahaha, is ComradeThoth on raddle? They are hilarious.

5

ziq wrote

no but I tried inviting them once.

2

[deleted] wrote

2

Freux OP wrote

Unfortunately null votes are counted as no-vote in certain countries, like the USA.

3

ziq wrote

Or a vote to kill all the leaders?

2

neverinNJ wrote (edited )

voting seems to count more if you vote the corporate main parties than a third party. At least according to the narrative of the main party operatives. Just don't expect regime change. Voting is mandatory in some countries. Non-voters just put their attention elsewhere.

2

Majrelende wrote (edited )

By not voting, what someone is doing is giving the decision to the dwindling amount of people who do vote, and therefore, voters are not actually responsible for a ruler being elected; it is almost certain that someone will be elected, whether they will trample the oppressed very much or just less than usual.

I know voting is completely ineffective, but at least it is also completely ineffective in actually doing harm unless no one votes— an almost unimaginable situation.

1

Freux OP wrote

Voting is harmful and if the party you voted for get in power, you are responsible to have put them there.

1

HexNash wrote (edited )

"If the party you voted for get in power, you are responsible to have put them there."

That position is no more reasonable than saying one is responsible for perpetuating capitalism for buying groceries. Someone is going to take the office no matter what and it makes no sense to throw away an opportunity to try to get a less evil person. You're taking a ridiculously unfair, unrepresentative, and undemocratic system that rewards strategic voting over going with one's true preferences, and acting like filling in a bubble to nudge towards a less shitty outcome for a lot of people amounts to an endorsement of anything and everything the candidate does. While working to dismantle oppressive systems it doesn't hurt to also take advantage of loopholes within them to make life a little less crappy in the meantime.

2

Freux OP wrote

If you don't eat, you die. If you don't vote you're still alive.

I believe you when you say you don't endorse everything a candidate does. What I'm saying is that you are still voting for them which give the same result as voting for them because you agree on everything.

I hope this won't be too farfetch but if you are against animal exploitation, you could chose to only eat chicken reducing the exploitation to only one animal, or you could eat no animal and not partake in that exploitation, or you could hunt with a huge respect for nature. Not eating meat from meat industries won't stop exploitation but at least you aren't perpetuating it.

2

drfuzzyballs1996 wrote

When I do vote it's either third party or I write something in. Most of the time I'm not willing to hold my nose and vote for a democrat or republican so I'm not to blame in either line of reasoning.

1

Freux OP wrote

Sure in the US a third party will probably never win but if they do, you will be accountable. Are all voters accountable for whoever wins because representative democracy is accepting the peaceful transfer of power regardless of the elected?

1

conseil wrote

The real answer is to vote for President Vermin Supreme. I don't care what country you live in.

1