Refusing to vote against a clear fascist candidate because the system is unjust is, in my mind, a bit like holding your breath until the bully stops beating up the unpopular kid. I can appreciate the intent, but it's so hopelessly naive about how these things work and what will have even a little impact, that it's just as likely to encourage the behaviour to continue as not.
Don't vote if you can't stand to, but don't pretend it helps anything other than your own sense of self-righteousness.
🇳🇱
I agree with this, People should vote for the least fascist person on the ballot. That would rule our Biden and Trump.
I agree with that. Which is also in line with why I would never vote for Biden or Trump but instead one of the many other options. With Bidens extremely racist history, and Trump's similarly racist history, not to mention the long list of other problems each propose, as someone who agrees wit you on the importance of morality and "purity of intent" I could never bring myself to vote for either of these.
@freemo you misread me.
Purity testing is pseudo-religous nonsense. If you think voting based on your individual standards is more effective than voting based on a realistic understanding of the current political situation, you are wrong.
Voting is not an individual exercise, it's a societal exercise. Unless you're confident that you can convince enough people to actually get your third party into office, voting third party is an exercise in futility and not much more impactful than not voting.
Again agreed, you should vote with awaeeness to the overall picture and political situation which again leads me to the same conclusion, one shoukd vote for anyone but trump or biden
@freemo again with the "should"
You don't get to decide how other people vote.
I'm not telling people how they ought to vote, I'm saying that if you have a realistic understanding of American electoral politics, and you don't want Trump to have another term, Biden is the only realistic way to keep him out of office.
Unless you can manifest an overnight epiphany for the average American and the electoral college, spending your vote on a third candidate is just as self-indulgent as not voting
@Vincarsi Your orignal wording is...
> Refusing to vote against a clear fascist candidate because the system
Quite absurd you went from that to "you should vote for one of the most fascist candidates to prevent the other fascist candidate from winning. But ok, I guess if you want to move the goal post, sure.
@freemo Biden is flawed, the system is unjust. But at least Biden will remain accountable to the system. Trump has outright stated his intent to end the tenuous democracy you still have.
If the bathroom pipes are leaking, you might have to get shit on you to repair it. If you don't have the ideal replacement you need within reach, you might have to jury-rig it with duct tape until you can acquire one.
Biden isn't ideal, but voting against him is more likely to let Trump have the nuclear codes
> Biden is flawed, the system is unjust. But at least Biden will remain accountable to the system. Trump has outright stated his intent to end the tenuous democracy you still have.
That doesnt track with reality. I mean, yea Trump isnt accountable so how you describe Trump is accurate. But describing Biden as someone who will let himself be accountable to the system... no that doesnt track.
> If the bathroom pipes are leaking, you might have to get shit on you to repair it.
Yup, but if instead of repairing it I replace them with newer pipes that leak just as bad then all I did was get shit all over me for nothing.
> Biden isn't ideal, but voting against him is more likely to let Trump have the nuclear codes
Trump already had the nuclear codes. As has Biden. The last thing I want is for either of these people to have nuclear codes. So arguing that you will prevent nuke codes from getting into Trumps hands by giving them to Biden is in no way an improvement.
@freemo you're forgetting reality.
Do you honestly think that there's any timeline where one of those two will not be the winner of this election?
If yes, how do you propose to make that happen?
If no, why are you basing your engagement in a real system on a fantasy where your individual moral purity actually matters?
> you're forgetting reality.
I am not, you are just making assumptions about my priotities.
> Do you honestly think that there's any timeline where one of those two will not be the winner of this election?
Its statistically unlikely to happen this election, but possible. The USa has switched away from one of the two major parties to allow a new party take over as a dominate party 8 times in history (rarely switching back after). In all cases that change happened over the course of one election with the under dog have 1 or 2 % the previous year, and taking over a majority by the next election.
So while it is fairly rare historically we have enough evidence to know its possible, and that when it does happen it can not be predicted from the results the previous year, in that, it is never a gradual transition and always a sudden one (this is an effect due to FPTP voting).
If you do the math the historic statistical chance of a third-party taking over as a main party in a single election is ~7%
> If yes, how do you propose to make that happen?
7% is greater than 0, so the answer is, yes, of course its possible, its happened 8 times already, so we know for a fact it is possible. It simply is statistically unlikely.
It happens on its own, usually when the two major parties have such a huge disconnect with the public morality that the shift occurs. Which I would say this year stands a higher chance than most of that happening naturally.
That said the best way you can bring it about would be to vote third-party even if you know you might loose the vote that year. By bolstering the numbers it helps to counter the two-party myth your selling and will encourage people to consider third-party more seriously in the future. So the best thing you can do to get this result is vote third party.
Its important to note that elections cant be won without majority support. When enough people split between enough parties (which is rare) you dont get a case where "the other guy wins" you can actually get a case where none of them win, which can also drive third-party support long term should such a thing come to pass again.
> If no, why are you basing your engagement in a real system on a fantasy where your individual moral purity actually matters?
Reducing it to a yes or no answer is silly... but if you must then as we covered the chance is greater than 0, we have had proof of it happening 8 times historically so we know for a fact it is possible. It is just unlikely.
@freemo I wish you the best of luck...
It would be cool to see a third party win. If you think it's doable, more power to you.
I find it hard to take seriously, but like I said, I'm not telling people how they ought to vote, just that they need to be realistic about what the impact is likely to be. If you're happy with a 7% chance of success, you've clearly put that thought in.
I'm a bystander north of the border who's cheering for you not ending your democracy. Again, good luck.
@Vincarsi You missed the bulk of what I said... Even with only a 7% chance, and even if a third party looses and you know that going in, it is still the correct choice.
Voting for one fascist over another solves nothing and you wind up with the same problem.
Voting for third party and loosing increases the numbers for third-parties, encoruages future voters to consider it more seriously, and may eventually lead to actual change.
So even if we take what you say at face value, that a third party vote wont win, it is still the choice that is more likely to save america in the end. The more people who care and vote this way the more positive impact it will have.
@freemo I encourage you to read some of the conversations on this thread: https://mastodon.world/@StillIRise1963/112105380494589127
I think the idea that voting should be done based on an individual's sense of morality or purity of intent instead of on what choice will realistically move society in the direction we want to go is pusdo-religious nonsense.
We can't just "should" a better world into existence, we have to use what we have to build what we want and it's going to take time and a healthy dose of pragmatism.