I haven’t voted in years after reading the argument that voting mainly serves to slot you into a cohort, making it easier for governments and corporations to profile you. Recently I heard someone argue the opposite angle: don’t vote because none of the politicians deserve you. A comedian mocked that stance as basically holding your breath when you are angry.
Now I’m conflicted because both arguments feel compelling in different ways. What are your strongest arguments for voting, or against voting?
Against voting:
- feels like it doesn’t matter
- the choices often suck
For voting:
- it evidently does matter
- it’s the most efficient way to give your political opinion some weight
Also I assume the down votes are for the following reasons:
- not voting only serves unpopular politicians and parties
- not voting being promoted through a post like this one would exacerbate this issue
- the science is pretty settled that voting matters, even if it feels like it doesn’t, so making this topic debatable seems disingenuous
I assume you are being honest, so let me make this clear once again: a voting populus is what stands between a democracy and a dictatorship. Not only do dictators dismantle voting rights wherever they can, but it’s also the best tool to keep them away.
“You are but a cog in the machine yet it is your decision to turn.” - me, high off my ass
Canada (I’m Canadian) had quite the turn last election. We were almost surely going into a conservative religious-dominant government until our southern friends showed us the error of that way.
I generally don’t vote to be honest. But now? Well. To be entirely frank…
Fuck me.
As someone who is very poor and one step away from being on the streets (which I won’t do so one step away from… y’know) I was expecting a conservative government to gut everything I rely on.
Instead I’ve been at a work resource center and they’ve been telling me now is a “hot time” to do things like government funded retraining. Specifically due to the government that’s in power now.
So yeah. Maybe I should get in a line and vote. Turns out it makes a difference.
It may or may not be important depending on your area and electoral system (if any), but it is usually easy.
I haven’t voted in years after reading the argument that voting mainly serves to slot you into a cohort, making it easier for governments and corporations to profile you.
If it’s secret ballot they literally can’t do that.
Well, not entirely true. They do it in the US based on your public voter registration data, giving rise to companies that only exist to suck up and sell that data to groups looking to game the system instead of giving people what they want/need/deserve.
You’re not just voting for politicians, but judges, sheriffs, school board members & many others. Often, you’re choosing the lesser of 2 evils and rarely will you match policy-for-policy with your best candidate, but in what other way do you have to express your opinions?
I research all candidates on my locality’s ballot and bring notes on who I plan to vote for. I sometimes can vote absentee, which is even better.
As I’ve found in many elections, I’m the minority. That’s ok because I believe that when the polls are close, it can pull the candidates closer to my views as they try to appeal to the groups that may give them a few more votes.
Arguments against:
- meaningful positive change for the common person won’t be achieved via an elected candidate. If that candidate was willing and able to make some actual change, they wouldn’t be on the ballot. Voting in a representative democracy is illusion of choice.
Arguments for:
- liberals (in the social definition) and conservatives view democracy at least as a tool to get what they want. Conservatives want to twist it to perpetuate and enforce their view of the world, liberals want to get increasingly slow incremental change. It is a losing battle for liberals, but there isn’t enough class consciousness for actual change to happen. I’d rather side with the liberals than the conservatives.
I find none of these arguments convincing. You have the right to vote. Unless you’re in Australia that means you can just not go vote also. That’s your choice.
Voter turnout has an influence on the vote share the extremes of the political spectrum get. If you’re on the extreme, you tend to go vote for your cause because you found your calling. So if enough people in the middle choose not to participate, you’ll end up with difficult majorities and/or more extreme governments. The latter is also true if either extreme is convincing many of the people in the middle. And that’s where tactical voting comes in. That’s why I would personally lean towards a “go vote and vote for the best of the worst if nothing fits well” approach. But I wouldn’t elevate this to the level of an ‘electoral imperative’ because it is a personal choice.
In my state your polling placed does not record your party although if you vote in primaries they will ask which ballot you want. As for my opinion its simply this. For most of history the average person has gotten no say in who was in charge and how they governed. There are examples but they tend to be pretty small. Something on the scale of most modern countries. Not even close. Voting may not give you a massive say in what goes on but it does give you some. Its incredibly precious and even further the right to protest if you voice is being ignored or circumvented is an even greater thing. I like living in peace. I don’t want to have to contest violently to have a say. My country is already getting a taste of what not having rights is like and losing the right to vote (or the vote becoming a truly on party pointless excersise) is not an experience I am looking to have.
Somewhat relevant, I really enjoyed this comment on lesser evilism: https://lemmy.world/comment/20970769
And I like what DB0 has to say about electoralism, but I can’t find the link I saved about it
I’m sorry so many are downvoting this. You are right to question electoralism, especially if you are American, in which case your choice is a rightwing party that respects their voters (the GOP) or a rightwing party that HAAATES the hippie scum that vote for them (the DNC).
I disagree with the notion that the GOP respects their voters. They definitely not either. They might fear some of the voters at times but I don’t consider this the same as respect
a rightwing party that respects their voters (the GOP)
Lol! Wut? They “respect their voters” so much that they strip them of healthcare, public education, civil rights, labor rights, privacy rights…etc etc etc?
I agree with you about the DNC, but seriously…smh.
The GOP has legit primaries where the winner wins via a democratic process and GOP electeds visibly fear their voters. The DNC runs like Scientology, but less effectively, as shown by their recent Cuomo run against their own voters losing vs Lieberman in 2006. But can you IMAGINE the GOP itself killing a candidate at ANY level against the democratic will of their voters?
GOP voters have been indoctrinated by decades of propaganda, into voting against their own best interests, and to believe that political violence is a necessary component of a healthy democracy.
GOP politicians are right to fear them. They’ve been brainwashed into being dangerous both to themselves and anyone who disagrees with them. They’re treated as political weapons, to be used to enforce the will of those in power. That isn’t “respect”…it’s manipulation.
And I still don’t disagree with you about the DNC. But that has nothing to do with the GOP’s treatment of their own constituents. You know there’s nothing mutually exclusive about this…right? This isn’t a war between “light” and “dark”, or “right” and “wrong”. It’s just two different methods of holding onto power.
Can you name ONE situation where the GOP ran against their own elected candidate ala Cuomo 2025 or Lieberman 2006?
Trump has had several GOP “rhinos” primaried because they wouldn’t bend the knee.
-
Rusty Bowers: The former Arizona House Speaker was censured by his state party and targeted by Trump after he refused to help overturn the 2020 election results in Arizona.
-
Liz Cheney: As the former chair of the House Republican Conference and a leading critic of Trump, she was a primary target. Trump endorsed Harriet Hageman, who defeated Cheney in the 2022 Wyoming primary election.
-
Doug Ducey: Trump called the former Arizona governor a “RINO” for not engaging with his efforts to challenge the 2020 election outcome in the state.
-
Larry Hogan: Trump has repeatedly labeled the former Maryland governor a “RINO,” though Hogan has remained popular in his state.
-
Brian Kemp: The Governor of Georgia earned Trump’s ire for certifying the 2020 election results in his state. Trump endorsed David Perdue in the Republican primary, but Kemp won re-election.
-
Mitch McConnell: Trump has repeatedly attacked the Senate Minority Leader, though he has not been able to directly replace him.
-
Lisa Murkowski: One of the few remaining senators who voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial, Murkowski has faced heat from Trump’s allies and activists, though she was not successfully primaried.
-
Ken Paxton: When the Texas Attorney General faced impeachment charges, Trump defended him and called his Republican opponents “RINOs”.
-
Ben Sasse: The former Nebraska senator was another Republican who voted to convict Trump. Sasse later left the Senate to become president of the University of Florida.
-
Pat Toomey: The former Pennsylvania Senator, who also voted to convict Trump, retired from the Senate at the end of his term.
-
Lisa Murkowski won the 2010 Senate Election for Alaska, and Charlie Crist lost the 2010 Senate Election for Florida
So, I guess your whole argument just fell apart, then? It seems pretty flimsy if the entire thing is based on just one single factor.
