-20
OPINION: If your views don't align with either presidential candidate, vote for the one you'd rather protest against for the next 4 years. (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago by jaaake@lemmy.world to c/usa@lemmy.ml
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Nobody likes voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Casting a vote in favor of someone who is diametrically opposed to your viewpoint(s) absolutely sucks. The shitty reality is that we aren’t going to change the electoral process in the next two months.

If you don’t see either major candidate as a champion that you can support, it seems more beneficial to see it as selecting your enemy for the next four years. I would rather fight against someone that I have a chance of changing. At minimum I would rather protest against someone that I think has a lower chance of authorizing lethal force against a march that I attend.

Voting for a 3rd presidential candidate (or not voting at all), is letting someone else make that decision for you.

That said, we have got to get out of this constant cycle of only having two options. There’s too much money at a national level to start there. We’ve got to start local and get third party candidates into offices at a city level, then state, then national. It’s going to take a long time and it should have happened so very long ago. We can’t change the past, we can only change the future. The only time to start changing the future is in the present.

all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 month ago

This argument doesn't really work in your favor, Leftist organizing was much stronger under Trump, because liberals had a common enemy with Leftists.

That said, we have got to get out of this constant cycle of only having two options. There’s too much money at a national level to start there. We’ve got to start local and get third party candidates into offices at a city level, then state, then national. It’s going to take a long time and it should have happened so very long ago. We can’t change the past, we can only change the future. The only time to start changing the future is in the present.

This has no chance of working. Electoralism is designed to not work like that. If any third party showed any chance of winning at the local level, the DNC and GOP would collaborate against them. We have seen this in Georgia, where they kicked PSL off the ballot. The only way to legitimately get somebody not in the DNC or GOP in power is via Revolution.

[-] jaaake@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago

If any third party showed any chance of winning at the local level, the DNC and GOP would collaborate against them. We have seen this in Georgia, where they kicked PSL off the ballot. The only way to legitimately get somebody not in the DNC or GOP in power is via Revolution.

Local is smaller than state. State still has too much money and will trounce smaller parties just like you said. Looking at PSLs election results, the only showings of note are board seats, city council, and mayor. That’s where we need to start.

I’m not saying this is the only path forward. I’m all for guillotines, but you need the people on your side for that and getting the people aware of the movement is a tough process.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

Local is smaller than state. State still has too much money and will trounce smaller parties just like you said. Looking at PSLs election results, the only showings of note are board seats, city council, and mayor. That’s where we need to start.

I understand that Local is smaller than State. I also understand that the second a Third Party posed any threat, both establishment parties would collaborate against them, regardless of having won local elections or not. You can't vibe a party into power.

I’m not saying this is the only path forward. I’m all for guillotines, but you need the people on your side for that and getting the people aware of the movement is a tough process.

Correct, which is why voting for PSL is good for visibility.

Please, you desparately need to read Theory.

[-] jaaake@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Which theory?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

I'm a Communist, so I recommend Marxist Theory, but any Leftist Theory would be good for you.

Particularly, The State and Revolution and Reform or Revolution are relevant in this case, but I don't know what you have or have not read.

[-] jaaake@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago

This argument doesn't really work in your favor, Leftist organizing was much stronger under Trump, because liberals had a common enemy with Leftists.

So your stance is that in order to see real change, we must increase the amount of suffering and only then will people be motivated enough to do something about it? Sounds pretty risky to me.

[-] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 month ago

It feels more like they're explaining why your argument doesn't work in your favor because it's accelerationism, not that they're advocating for accelerationism.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Police killings have gone up every single year under Biden, yet the streets are empty.

We don't need to increase suffering, we need liberals to stop pretending everything is fine.

[-] jaaake@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Police killings have gone up every single year under Biden, yet the streets are empty.

That’s a great stat that should be shared more widely.

We don't need to increase suffering, we need liberals to stop pretending everything is fine.

Agreed!

If you think those numbers won’t continue to rise under a Trump regime, you and I have irreconcilable differences of opinion

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

These stats show that the amount of suffering will continue to increase regardless of who the president is, so accelerationism is pointless. Trump oversaw the largest protest movement in US history and that category of suffering has only increased since he left office, but the protests are small and easily controlled. That tells me that increasing suffering isn't actually relevant.

The real problem is that liberals are staying home. They tune out and go back to brunch when a Democrat is in office.

[-] jaaake@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

That tells me that increasing suffering isn't actually relevant.

Big oof

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

People are suffering right now, but the streets are empty.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

No, your argument that we should vote for whoever would be the best to protest under is acceletationism. By your logic, Leftists should vote for Trump. That's your line of logic.

[-] jaaake@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

The only way it’s best to protest under Trump is if you want to die while protesting.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

The only way it's best to protest under Trump/Harris is if you want to die while protesting.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

No, your argument that we should vote for whoever would be the best to protest under is acceletationism. By your logic, Leftists should vote for Trump. That's your line of logic.

[-] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Why not vote for the lesser of two evils and still protest them in office?

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago

Why protest if you aren't going to hold them accountable in any material way? Why would they care?

[-] jaaake@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago

Yes! Literally this is what I’m trying to say!

[-] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Somehow I, and everyone else here, read your post as "vote for the worst of two evils to shift the general political landscape by protest and making the lesser of two evils have to work extra hard to be less evil than the slightly-less evil greater of two evils". Re-reading, I can see your point, but somehow we all misunderstood it

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Well you worded it absolutely awfully, because the conclusion I came to was that you are trying to encourage people to vote for Trump

[-] antmzo220@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

You don't protest so the president feels bad and changes things. This will not happen, they are not your friends who happen to be ignorant.

You protest so the people wake up and demand change.

The Israeli genocide and campus protests have shown that liberals will happily ignore or even side with the Democratic party no matter what, even on the issue of supporting genocide, while police storm the encampments and arrest/beat people who oppose said genocide.

Trump is better for protests id anything, because more people are willing to protest Trump (think how massive the BLM protests were) than are willing to protest the Dems, and neither party are interested in just giving you what you want anyway.

[-] taur10@friendica.opensocial.space 1 points 1 month ago

@jaaake I wish we had a serious realistic third party out there

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago

If enough people keep voting for them, we can.

[-] taur10@friendica.opensocial.space 1 points 1 month ago

@Maeve @jaaake Not until they lose their fixation on the presidency

this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
-20 points (30.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7211 readers
437 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
pangyuehung@lemmy.ml
yogthos@lemmy.ml