4 ms·

Not voting is the equivalent of saying "I support whatever the outcome is". You're effectively submitting to the status quo (or rather the future status quo).

by pluma 8y ago

Not voting is the equivalent of saying "I support whatever the outcome is". You're effectively submitting to the status quo (or rather the future status quo). It's a legitimate choice in the sense that it's a decision you can make and that it carries a political message. It's most likely not the message you intend though.

salvar 8y ago
Submitting to the (future) status quo is very different from saying "I support whatever the outcome is" though. Unless you mean "support" as in "I will respect whatever happens", in which case I agree. But that applies to voters as well, and pretty much everyone.
pessimizer 8y ago
Only if choosing between two horrific candidates is the equivalent of saying "I support horrific candidate A." You can say "these candidates are both terrible" or "these candidates are completely indistinct" by not voting, and be saying "Candidate A will bring total disaster, even though Candidate B was the worst candidate I had ever seen until I saw Candidate A" when you vote for Candidate B. Your false dilemma is just a militant way of not listening to people.
CuriouslyC 8y ago
Stupid politicians see low voter turnout as a sign of laziness and indifference. Smart politicians see it as a sign that the platforms being presented aren't engaging, and look for ways to change their platform to remedy this. Unfortunately, because we're "all in" on the stupidity of the two party system, a lot of smart politicians are being hamstrung by their party affiliation.
- sagichmal 8y ago
  Two parties are the natural and unavoidable consequence of first-past-the-post electoral systems. Work to change that, if you like, but meanwhile, work with the system that exists to shape society as you see fit.
  - CuriouslyC 8y ago
    The whole point is that the system that exists isn't providing me the option to shape society "as I see fit". Not voting signals the missed opportunity to politicians more clearly than voting for the slightly lesser of two evils. Writing in a protest vote for "a real democracy" might signal this a little more strongly, but my time is valuable to me.
    - sagichmal 8y ago
      > Not voting signals the missed opportunity to politicians more clearly than voting for the slightly lesser of two evils. No, it doesn't. It really super duper doesn't. I mean it obviously doesn't. There is no politician in the whole of the United States who is looking at the absymal electorate percentages and saying "I bet I can get that non-voting 70% if I form a new party!" or whatever because the system itself prevents that outcome structurally. As long as we are first-past-the-post it will literally never happen. Your only option to shape society is to choose from the options presented to you. Abstaining is absolutely and completely not a protest, it's a validation of, and vote to continue, the status quo.
      - CuriouslyC 8y ago
        You don't think politicians try to analyze the variables influencing voter turnout? You don't think they are paying pollsters to find out what "must vote" issues and positions are? Any politicians that stupid don't deserve to be making decisions for me. Also, do you think I'm going to sit on the sidelines if a candidate makes reforming voting, eliminating the two party system, doing away with the electoral college, reforming fund-raising and eliminating gerrymandering their entire platform (with a reasonable plan for execution)? As someone who isn't represented by either party of a two party system, my only option to shape society is protest. Supporting a candidate that doesn't represent my views just reinforces the status quo.
        sagichmal 8y ago
        > As someone who isn't represented by either party of a two party system Nobody is represented by either party of a two party system. They each represent opposite sides of a fractious and inelegant border between the emergent political and cultural forces of a society. Whether by design or by accident they're descriptive rather than proscriptive. Unless you are the mythical true-independent, whose views perfectly split that fractious divide, it is certain that one party is more aligned with you than the other. (To be blunt, in this grotesque age of narcissism and brutish xenophobia, all human beings with decency are categorically incompatible with one party.) If that's true, and it almost certainly is true, everything aligns for you to vote with the more-compatible party. Do that to shape the society given the state of its political machinery, and also work to whatever extent you can to change that machinery. Opting out of the first because of some purity test of perfect representation is cutting off your nose to spite your face and the faces of everyone you live with.

by pluma 8y ago

salvar 8y ago

Submitting to the (future) status quo is very different from saying "I support whatever the outcome is" though. Unless you mean "support" as in "I will respect whatever happens", in which case I agree. But that applies to voters as well, and pretty much everyone.

pessimizer 8y ago

Only if choosing between two horrific candidates is the equivalent of saying "I support horrific candidate A." You can say "these candidates are both terrible" or "these candidates are completely indistinct" by not voting, and be saying "Candidate A will bring total disaster, even though Candidate B was the worst candidate I had ever seen until I saw Candidate A" when you vote for Candidate B. Your false dilemma is just a militant way of not listening to people.

CuriouslyC 8y ago

Stupid politicians see low voter turnout as a sign of laziness and indifference. Smart politicians see it as a sign that the platforms being presented aren't engaging, and look for ways to change their platform to remedy this. Unfortunately, because we're "all in" on the stupidity of the two party system, a lot of smart politicians are being hamstrung by their party affiliation.

sagichmal 8y ago
Two parties are the natural and unavoidable consequence of first-past-the-post electoral systems. Work to change that, if you like, but meanwhile, work with the system that exists to shape society as you see fit.
- CuriouslyC 8y ago
  The whole point is that the system that exists isn't providing me the option to shape society "as I see fit". Not voting signals the missed opportunity to politicians more clearly than voting for the slightly lesser of two evils. Writing in a protest vote for "a real democracy" might signal this a little more strongly, but my time is valuable to me.
  - sagichmal 8y ago
    > Not voting signals the missed opportunity to politicians more clearly than voting for the slightly lesser of two evils. No, it doesn't. It really super duper doesn't. I mean it obviously doesn't. There is no politician in the whole of the United States who is looking at the absymal electorate percentages and saying "I bet I can get that non-voting 70% if I form a new party!" or whatever because the system itself prevents that outcome structurally. As long as we are first-past-the-post it will literally never happen. Your only option to shape society is to choose from the options presented to you. Abstaining is absolutely and completely not a protest, it's a validation of, and vote to continue, the status quo.
    - CuriouslyC 8y ago
      You don't think politicians try to analyze the variables influencing voter turnout? You don't think they are paying pollsters to find out what "must vote" issues and positions are? Any politicians that stupid don't deserve to be making decisions for me. Also, do you think I'm going to sit on the sidelines if a candidate makes reforming voting, eliminating the two party system, doing away with the electoral college, reforming fund-raising and eliminating gerrymandering their entire platform (with a reasonable plan for execution)? As someone who isn't represented by either party of a two party system, my only option to shape society is protest. Supporting a candidate that doesn't represent my views just reinforces the status quo.
      - sagichmal 8y ago
        > As someone who isn't represented by either party of a two party system Nobody is represented by either party of a two party system. They each represent opposite sides of a fractious and inelegant border between the emergent political and cultural forces of a society. Whether by design or by accident they're descriptive rather than proscriptive. Unless you are the mythical true-independent, whose views perfectly split that fractious divide, it is certain that one party is more aligned with you than the other. (To be blunt, in this grotesque age of narcissism and brutish xenophobia, all human beings with decency are categorically incompatible with one party.) If that's true, and it almost certainly is true, everything aligns for you to vote with the more-compatible party. Do that to shape the society given the state of its political machinery, and also work to whatever extent you can to change that machinery. Opting out of the first because of some purity test of perfect representation is cutting off your nose to spite your face and the faces of everyone you live with.