3 ms·

When you don't vote you accept responsibility for everything that happens next.

by munk-a 2y ago

dredmorbius 2y ago
There is a significant fraction of the US population which was excluded from voting. Deliberately, as a partisan tactic. Sufficient likely to have changed the outcome. "Voting Laws Roundup: September 2024" <https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-september-2024 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...> Overall 2024 turnout was below that of 2020, though that itself was the highest since 2004: <https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024:_Analysis_of_voter_turnout_in_the_2024_general_election https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024:_Analysis_of_...>
- munk-a 2y ago
  I'd clarify that those people have absolutely no responsibility for the administration and it's an absolute shame that any US citizen is denied the right to vote (including felons - yes even the really bad ones). Populations have a wide range of people in them - and if a society is so close to the razor's edge that it'd only survive in normalcy by excluding felons then it's already lost. Regular folks who can't afford special IDs being denied from voting is just criminal in my eyes. I agree that's a major problem - but I hope my original comment was worded clearly enough to be directed at those who had the opportunity and actively chose not to vote... if not, I hope this clears that up.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    I understand and share that viewpoint, FWIW. A key problem with that as a major argument is that 1) that group is unlikely to be persuaded regardless,[1] and 2) the disenfranchised population seems plausibly capable of having altered the outcome. ________________________________ Notes: 1. I'm increasingly of the view that political debate is far less about persuasion and far more about motivation and probably even moreso demotivation. At least in the present media landscape. The wrong side's been winning that war of late in the US. Though as many political commentators have noted, the theme in 2024 seems to have been less authoritarian advantage than incumbent disadvantage (see esp. Tory loss in UK). Even given that, a challenge is that authoritarian wins tend to be stickier (through promulgation of further anti-democratic voter exclusion, amongst other means) than nonauthoritarian wins. Reversing that trend will be a major challenge for the next few decades, should it even be possible.

When you don't vote you accept responsibility for everything that happens next.

by munk-a 2y ago

When you don't vote you accept responsibility for everything that happens next.

There is a significant fraction of the US population which was excluded from voting. Deliberately, as a partisan tactic. Sufficient likely to have changed the outcome. "Voting Laws Roundup: September 2024" <https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-september-2024 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...> Overall 2024 turnout was below that of 2020, though that itself was the highest since 2004: <https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024:_Analysis_of_voter_turnout_in_the_2024_general_election https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2024:_Analysis_of_...>

munk-a 2y ago
I'd clarify that those people have absolutely no responsibility for the administration and it's an absolute shame that any US citizen is denied the right to vote (including felons - yes even the really bad ones). Populations have a wide range of people in them - and if a society is so close to the razor's edge that it'd only survive in normalcy by excluding felons then it's already lost. Regular folks who can't afford special IDs being denied from voting is just criminal in my eyes. I agree that's a major problem - but I hope my original comment was worded clearly enough to be directed at those who had the opportunity and actively chose not to vote... if not, I hope this clears that up.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  I understand and share that viewpoint, FWIW. A key problem with that as a major argument is that 1) that group is unlikely to be persuaded regardless,[1] and 2) the disenfranchised population seems plausibly capable of having altered the outcome. ________________________________ Notes: 1. I'm increasingly of the view that political debate is far less about persuasion and far more about motivation and probably even moreso demotivation. At least in the present media landscape. The wrong side's been winning that war of late in the US. Though as many political commentators have noted, the theme in 2024 seems to have been less authoritarian advantage than incumbent disadvantage (see esp. Tory loss in UK). Even given that, a challenge is that authoritarian wins tend to be stickier (through promulgation of further anti-democratic voter exclusion, amongst other means) than nonauthoritarian wins. Reversing that trend will be a major challenge for the next few decades, should it even be possible.