860
Teary-eyed John Oliver begs reluctant voters to back Harris
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
860 points (97.4% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4582 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Individual politicians and political parties routinely use count a vote as approval. In that way, if no other, voting does serve to support the existing system.
But, even if you believe there must be revolution and the current system CANNOT be reformed, voting is still harm reduction, unless revolution will happen before the results of the election can influence the system.
I saw an anecdote here the other day on why it is important to vote for Harris even if you disagree with Harris politically.
I'm pretty sure the anecdote is fake but the general story goes:
In 2000, someone attended a rally for Al Gore in Florida. They ended up deciding that the democrats didn't represent their voice. They felt (correctly) that the environment was an important issue and that Gore wasn't going to do enough to save the environment, so they voted green party instead as a way to punish the Dems and make them see the light.
We all know what happened after, but think of what might have been if just a few thousand Floridians voted for Gore instead of... well, anyone else.
You can "what if" and project this election forever, but I think its important to remember that if shockingly few people voted for Al Gore instead of a third-party candidate, or protest voting, the global war on terror probably would never have happened. Maybe the 2008 housing crisis too. We would likely be reaping the benefits of decades of green energy research, instead of just getting started.
Just found this post, seems likely to be the same thing: https://lemmy.world/post/21602581
Different post, same story.
Why would that anecdote be fake? Nothing about that is hard to believe, there were likely thousands of Floridians in 2000 that had that exact experience. It's literally why Bush "won."
Specifically because its told from the POV of someone attending a Stevie Wonder rally in Florida. But as far as I can tell Stevie only opened for Gore in Washington State or something.
It doesn't really matter if the story is true or not though. The core truth is the same: your vote matters, don't throw it away. Anyone who tells you your vote doesn't matter or that your voice is unimportant is actively working against you.
So then why did we get further environmental destruction and more war on terror under Obama? Why was Hillary Clinton, a notorious war hawk set to succeed Obama instead of someone with genuinely progressive positions?
The US has a fascist far right and a far right with gay rights party up for election. And the far right with gay rights party has become more reactionary on issues like immigration and also in many places violently cracked down on peaceful anti-racist protests. It is currently violently cracking down on anti-genocide protests. Maybe there is a chance to reform that party. But this requires a mass uprising against the entrenched party elite. The party elite that has used the fascist far right as a boogeyman threat to not question their power. A threat that they rather accept bringing into power than to provide non-genocide, non-racist, non-exploitative policies.
Hysterical and immature.
I don't think that tracks.
The highest turnout in any US election since 1908 was 62% in 2020, and at no point has a party won an election and been like 'look at all the people who didn't vote, I guess we don't have a mandate to govern'
Parties win elections and govern in power with less than 50% of voters backing them all the time, it's literally the standard. A low turnout will not change the way any party acts once in power.
I never claimed they would use non-voting as a signal for anything, only that they count votes as agreement, not mere tolerance.
The amount and percentage of non-voter signals to most politicians that people tacitly approve of the entire system. After all, if they disapproved of something about it, they would've at least bothered to show up and vote, right?
There's no better "the status quo is fine" indicator than not even giving enough of a shit to show up at the polls (or in some cases return a slip of paper through the mail).
In what world is refusing to participate in a system you see as irreparably broken considered condoning its existence?
For the record, I voted for the lesser fascist because a complete redo of our system will be slightly harder under the rule of greater fascists.
In a world where refusal to participate is indistinguishable from being too lazy, complacent, or satisfied to participate, and that is the one we live in.
Do you think politicians are going to go check why you didn't vote? It's basically as if you don't exist to them.
Edit: I find it hilarious that when people disagree with my argument here, they downvote this post to signal that. Why do that? If I'm wrong, I can just look through everyone's viewing history to see all of the people who didn't vote on the post at all instead. 😆