this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
313 points (82.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43733 readers
1538 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The opposite of „not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump“ isn’t true because of the electoral college, which heavily skews towards rural states with not many voters, which are often conservative.
You need roughly 4 Californian votes to match 1 Wyoming vote. That’s why Republicans seldom win the popular vote and still manage to win elections.
So if left leaning people don’t vote (or vote third party), the negative effect for Harris is amplified in comparison to conservatives.
Well, in that case, the Democrats should adopt policies that attract more left leaning voters. Saying stuff like, "I will prosecute migrants" doesn't make any sense because if that is an important topic to a voter, why wouldn't they just vote Trump who has promised that and more?
If the problem is, "not enough left leaning votes", the solution seems like, "attract more left leaning votes". People in this country love progressive leftist policies like universal healthcare or not funding genocides, no matter their party affiliation. People have not responded well to neo-liberal/conservative policies like means testing school lunches or increasingly stringent border laws.
And yet, the Democratic party continually adopts neo-liberal/conservative policies. It feels like voting Democrat is just, "voting Republican but slower". The Democratic party has accepted the Republican framing about an imaginary migrant crisis, and that was with a much more firm stance against racism only 4 years ago. Yeah, they would possibly be better on Israel's genocide than Republicans, but all the actions protesting the genocide have been met with vitriol from the current administration. It seems far more likely that the Democrats would just do the same thing as Republicans, just less loudly.
The Democratic party cannot expect to win simply because, "orange man bad". They have not shown they will not continue to adopt Republican ideas and policies. If they want people to vote for them, they should do things to attract those voters. They should stop doing things that pushes away voters.
It’s not as easy as you make it out to be.
The Democrats have to try to achieve the impossible: trying to retain left-leaning voters while getting enough centrists/swing votes to overcome the systematic disadvantage the electoral college poses for them.
In a de facto two party system that puts them between a rock and a hard place.
But what does that mean for you as a (I assume) left leaning voter?
It’s actually quite simple: vote for the least bad option.
By not voting for Harris you may successfully show the democrats your discontent for their policies. But you pay for that by helping a possible fascist into power (remember: we already found out that not voting, helps republican candidates in most cases), who will be far worse on most policies you care about.
It really doesn't feel like the Democrats are the least bad option when they keep adopting Republican policies. Sure, they don't want to kill trans people or conduct mass deportations now, but it sure feels like 4 years down the line I'm gonna be asked to vote Democrat even though Harris or whoever is trying to increase police budgets to "fight rising crime" or something ridiculous.
I keep having to vote for "the least bad option" while the Democratic party only ever courts neo-liberal/conservative voters. It really seems like my options are Fascist Now Party or Fascist Later Party. If the Democrats don't listen when I vote and don't listen when I abstain, why should I vote?
I feel like it is not a winning campaign strategy to say, "vote for Democrats because the Republicans are far worse". Progressive left policies are popular amongst centrist and swing voters, so it isn't like the Democrats will lose centrists by adopting progressive policies. Everybody likes expanding healthcare. Nobody likes genocide. So if adopting progressive policies attracts voters from all across the spectrum, why are the Democrats only focusing on stuff like, "build the wall" or "stay silent about genocide"?
The answer is in your question. Fascism later is the better option because it buys you time to do something else. Fascism now means the game is over today. Nothing about that is difficult to understand.
You'll have ample time (and freedom) to oppose Harris after November, but now's not the time.
Based on how liberals have accepted genocide as necessary at this point, the "fascism later" option seems more likely to make people comfortable with fascism, rather than buying us time to resist.
Even if that was true, how is that better than having fascism today, given than genocide will happen no matter what? You seem to imply people will have more willingness to resist if it happens tomorrow (and I doubt it). But are you really willing to take the chance on actual fascism? It really seems like you want it to happen...
You guys have a twisted sense of priorities. You're willing to trade a maybe for a surely.
America is currently "surely" assisting in a genocide. Hope this helps!
And it will "surely" be assisisting a genocide should Trump be elected. He never hid it or denied it.
The electoral college ensures the vote in California has nothing to do with the one in Wyoming.
You still haven't provided any proof that the net result of third party or not voting favors republicans though. It could just as easily still be neutral, or favor democrats.
It’s not rocket science. The person I responded to said they want Harris to win. Thus they are a potential Harris voter. When they don’t vote, Harris loses a potential vote, not Trump.
Depending on where they live, this gets amplified by the systemic disadvantage of left-leaning states in the electoral college.
If someone says they want kamala to win but doesnt vote for her, maybe you shouldnt trust what they say.