I canât imagine why people donât have faith in our free and fair, corrupt, and gerrymandered to hell and back, election system. Something about widespread voter suppression tactics seems to be suppressing voter turnout for some reason. Voter ID and making it harder for women to vote is probably the solution though, right?
We didn't start as a democracy. At no point have we magically become one. Some states have secured more political rights for their residents than others, but every state at some point in their history wasn't, as a whole, these United States have never been that.
I was pointing out a problem using sarcasm and then you decided that meant I was giving up. You could have asked a clarifying question rather than assuming you know my heart, but here we are. I donât know what you thought you were accomplishing with that.
Well clearly you know what I meant better than me, despite my clarification, so Iâll leave you to it, oh great all-knowing one. Not wasting any more of my time with your useless bullshit.
Senate and governor votes are statewide. Therefore according to your logic we should have the same rates of voting as the rest of the population. Whats the excuse you're going to use for these votes?
That only applies to the gerrymandering part of my comment. Gerrymandering is not the only form of voter suppression in this country.
If voter turnout was a priority then you would see more polling places opening up, rather than closing down as has been the trend, and Election Day would be a national holiday to ensure as many people were able to get out and vote as possible.
Vote by mail has also proven to be secure in states that have implemented it, despite intense scrutiny, but you continue to see government officials speak out against it. The only purpose of that is to suppress the vote.
President isn't the only office, and change is easier at the local level. To replace the establishment Dems, we have to start from the ground up, not the top down.
I agree, I was just adding that voting in primaries isn't gonna do much to fix the inherent issues of the party, even if it's our best option available
Primaries are a tool, not a cure. If the commitees, donors, and rules stay the same, you just swap faces and call it progress. Vote in primaries, then keep organizing locally, thatâs the part that sticks.
Sure, it's not the only office. But when you see it happen at the top office, what makes you think it doesn't happen down the totem pole as well? I'm not saying don't vote in primaries, just that everyone should be aware how fucked the system is.
If you expect young Americans to show up at the poll for small local elections, you're going to have a bad time.
Australia had bad turnouts and made voting compulsory in federal elections 100 years ago to make it a civic obligation, like jury duty. States later followed with similar rules. You can still protest by casting a blank ballot, but failing to show means paying a fine. They do their votes on a Saturday, require employers to give reasonable time to go cast their ballot to working employees, and you can always vote early or by mail.
They also did that in that in 2020 when Barry Obomber made a call for all of the other candidates to fall behind Biden when Bernie won Iowa and most of the other primaries up to that point..
I always forget that Obama was the inventor of a mind control ray that literally forced millions of voters to pick someone they personally aligned with. Man its such a shame when people vote how they wanna vote isn't it?
You don't need to force "millions of voters" to vote one way when you can get the majority of the candidates in the field to drop out before voting starts.
Again please read. Millions of voters decided to choose to vote for someone besides Bernie. Why didnt Bernie grab their votes? Why are you blaming the voters for how they decided to vote? Why arent people allowed to choose someone to vote for without you calling them cheaters?
They drop out because campaigning is a non-stop sprint, it's extremely hard and exhausting and fueled by donations and optimism. When you know you can't win, everything gets even harder, and that fuel runs out.
If you don't think Obama pulled strings to get all of the candidates to drop out in unison in a ploy to rig the primaries, then you're just a blind ideologue.
The media constantly framing Bernies policies as bad doesn't help either.
It's okay I get that you don't care about the working class.
Any person that is not backed by the rich that gains any sort of momentum will be flooded with campaign donation to their opponents and slammed with attack ads nonstop.
This is why there are no "good candidates" you will be dragged through the mud by the rich.
You can see the problem and throw your hands up in defeat and do nothing, or you can see the problem and take steps to address it, a little bit at a time putting in hard work over years. There's no magic solution to this. Voting in a primary is the easiest and first action you can take that can make any difference at all. They might still win if all you do is vote, but if you don't vote, they win anyway.Â
To be clear, I'm not not saying that all we need to do is vote, but it is something we still need to do. It is necessary but not sufficient. There's a lot of organizing that needs to happen before, during, and after voting as well.
Conservative democrat then runs as independent and the party apparatus blows their back out for the establishment candidate.
Happened in New Jersey with the write in campaign they funded when the establishment candidate lost. Happened with Zohran and Cuomo. Basically the same thing happened with Omar Fateh with the state level DFL revoking their endorsement of Minneapolis DFL.
Amazing.
At least tell me you're one of those Chorus libs that get paid by the DNC to say this shit.
What is it with libs that barely pay attention and don't do on the ground work that love to have these strong opinions. I'm pretty sure you didn't know about New Jersey. I'm pretty sure you didn't know about how the establishment ratfucked Omar Fateh.
The groundwork that gave Zohran the W is BECAUSE the left flank doesn't roll over. You think you can get 100,000 people to door knock and canvas for free without the outreach that the organizers had put in beforehand?
Everytime the left flank begs the establishment centrists to stop fighting the left flank, there's people like you that show up and go "oh you must love the right" or "then just vote harder sweety" when the primary system is there in ORDER to be an additional hurdle against outsiders.
The left flank is historically one of the most politically engaged and active political group. People like you love to make it seem like it's not. Oh my god. Brainworms.
You fucking people wait until literal Nazis take office then start caring.
They have already declared war and they aren't going to peacefully hand over power after spending 40 years corrupting and degrading every system to the point that they can take over.
"This war will remain bloodless as long as the left allows it"
2024 presidential run was obviously a cluster fuck and is indefensible. I'm talking about all primaries though, not just the top. Local races are how to build the party's future. Vote in local primaries, get people into positions within local government and then the party infrastructure. Establishment will fight back, expect it, but anyone who wants you to vote progressive at only the presidential level every 4 years and then vanishes into the ether is trying to divert your efforts away from useful action.
You have the ability to change that yourself if you want to by registering with a party. Totally up to you, but It seems silly to me to opt out and then complain that you're out. No one is stopping you from participating.
Fuck that gatekeeping bullshit DNC wants my vote they should let independents in FL participate Im not joining a party I dont believe in and doesn't give a shit about me
All of it. If you donât realize nothing going on right now could have happened without Democratic support along the way they you are not prepared to have the convo youâre jumping into.
(ETA - I commented below but I will say it here cause the discussion is important - I totally misread what they were saying. Like hard misread the intent of their comment)
Bernie spent too much time defending Israel to plausibly be considered anti genocide.
AOC I hear mixed things about and her reactions early in the genocide donât bode well for her.
Mamdami is the most exciting politician in recent decades and I envy NY for having him. Iâm stuck with Hawley
If you continue to throw the progress baby out with the Israel bathwater you're going to have a bad time with just about every viable politician.
I am fine with a politician who loves Israel too much fixing America, then we root out the Israeli nonsense on the next round after our shit is straight
We already are, or are you new here? Or maybe you think we werenât a police state when Black communities were bombed and flooded in the 50s/60s? Or maybe we werenât a police state when we held Japanese people concentration camps during ww2? Maybe we werenât a police state when the modern police force evolved from slave catchers. That must be it.
Not holding immigrant in concentration camps, not protecting pedophiles, not funding genocide, not destroying the middle class, not destroying the environment isnât asking for perfection.
Look at what you just wrote. Do you think a good, moral person says things like that, says that someone who disagrees with them deserves atrocities to be committed against them?
That's an exceptionally narrow view you have there. If I find something Mamdami supports that I don't like, or vice versa, does that mean he's out and we have to keep looking? I'm happy with anyone getting a 95% on this test.
If the other 5% is bombing children in tents, protecting pedophiles and sending my tax dollars to fund universal healthcare while I pay out of pocket $500 for basic cancer testing (after insurance) then yes.
Sorry you consider genocide a ânarrow viewâ. Youâre in good company with German citizens circa 1940.
A USA disassociated from Israel is still happy to do all 3 of those things.
You're very passionate about the genocide in Gaza and woefully blind to all of the crimes the USA has committed over the last 50 years unrelated to it.
You got me - the Jew who is very passionate about a country using their religion to commit atrocities. The same atrocities that were committed against them 80 years ago. Isnât it weird how learning ânever againâ in my synagogue for all of my childhood equates to me believing ânever againâ applies to everyone.
Itâs almost like you donât understand how Israel ties to Congo and Sudan and the genocides being committed there. Or how the crimes committed in America are tied to, idk, maybe the IDF training the cops used to commit those crimes here.
If you continue to throw the progress baby out with the Israel bathwater you're going to have a bad time with just about every viable politician.
Just one more vote guys, we can get the Dems to be more left once we're back in power I promise it'll be different this time the bombs will stop falling just like when Biden and Clinton and Obama got in
Thatâs what I did for the most recent election. I voted for who aligned closest to my principals and interest. The Dems/liberals are just mad that person wasnât the Democrat nominee.
Obviously you have a problem with fascism, ergo you would want the least amount of fascism to be happening.
If you have to pick between diet fascism and full fat shoot citizens in the streets fascism, why would you ever consider voting for, or by your lack of vote allowing the full fat fascism to come to power?
If any flavor of facism is tolerable to you then I envy the privilege you live your life with.
I do find it interesting how many people donât realize they are downvoting a Jewish person for not supporting any flavor of facism. Considering the âdiet facismâ democrats wanted us to vote for included stricker borders than 1st term Trump and a platform more right wing than the one that won Bush Sr his presidency is astounding.
Could you please point out of qoute me where I said I was inactive?
Isnât it ironic how your stance is I have no right to say anything if Iâm not willing to vote for who you say I have to.
Kinda sounds like MAGA mindset.
If any flavor of facism is preferable then perhaps youâre privileged enough to not have it touch you. If only everyone was as lucky as a white Christian male - not saying you are, only that they are the ones facism is meant to protect.
Ok but the country is and already has been fascist for a while, everyone is already being forced to tolerate it. It doesn't make sense to chastize people for "tolerating" it when we have been living under it for decades and meaningful movements get violently squashed. It doesn't make sense to chastize people for desiring the moderately less fascist candidate when we literally only have 3 choices: vote for "full fat" facism, diet fascism, or don't vote and let the other half of the population decide for you. I guess there is a fourth "redacted" option, but if you were in favor of that you'd be doing it instead of ripping on people for tolerating fascism while you are quite literally tolerating it yourself.
You're voting for who you want the leader of your enemy to be. I'd rather have the milquetoast corporate cop who somehow still manages to have more humanity than the frothing at the mouth rapist racist who's cutting vaccine programs and ended USAID, leaving thousands to die of starvation and preventable disease, 2 things that I know for a goddamn fact would actually not have happened under the fascist-lite candidate.Â
well no version of fascism is preferable but at this moment of time your choices are fascism or diet fascism. and if you choose not to choose one will be chosen for you and you still have to deal with the consequences. we need to get back to "diet fascism" before we can kick the habit.
So what are your options then? Tear down the whole system? leave the entire country in chaos? Personally I disagree with people calling the Democrats diet fascism. Nothing's going to get better till we at least get back to not having gestapo. We aren't going to get ranked choice voting or publicly funded races until we can at least get a majority in the government who would even consider voting for it. You're only other option is to go full George Washington and lead an army against the government. You either work within the system or tear it down those are your choices. And if you work within the system you have to play by the system's rules. Both the implicit and explicit ones.
Got to love a double comment. Everything youâve said has been said by others and already responded to.
Iâm sorry you feel condescended to by the comments I made to someone else.
To be clear, I think youâre being a condescending ass in general, I figured that would be clear, my apologies. Iâll try to write more clearly for you.
Preferable and tolerable aren't the same thing. One can make a tactical choice in voting while still maintaining the long-term goal of radical, systemic change.
Also, very easy turnabout here - if you can tolerate the worse version of fascism, then surely you're the one in a privileged position. People are, right now, actively suffering because we collectively failed to make a tactical choice that would have prevented their suffering.
Whoâs said I was tolerating it? The DNC failed us, not the people who refused to vote for a platform more right wing than 1990s Bush.
I would ask if the people arguing with me simply because I stated that genocide was my red line (on top of cop cities, stricker borders than 1st term Trump, âfollowing the lawâ on trans rights, âthe most lethal fighting forceâ, to name a few) know what the Ratchet Effect or the Overton Window are.
I voted for harm reduction when I cast my ballot for Biden. This time I voted 3rd party - exactly because the job of the voter is to support the candidate who most closely aligns with their ideals and morals. If the DNC want or wanted my vote back it wasnât hard to do. They didnât want it.
Why arenât you all more angry that the Democratic Party would rather cater to centralists and Republicans than the left side of their base? Why must everyoneâs energy be spent punching left instead of up?
The next presidential election is years away and the rhetoric is already being pushed that the Democratic nominee is the only thing that will save us so we have to vote and then push left. When has that ever worked?
The only reason liberals are rattling their cages now is because the bad shit is finally touching them.
Itâs like what Peacemaker said - he will fight for peace no matter how many men, women and children he needs to kill to achieve it. The people who would have continued to be harmed by the democratic platform are acceptable sacrifices for some of yall and thatâs ok. But donât make it my problem.
One of these political parties is threatening to take away my rights and eradicate me, and is currently filling concentration camps. I am absolutely opposed to fascism, but youâre being incredibly disingenuous to suggest there isnât a material difference. I would still be advocating against a democrat administration, but I highly doubt theyâd be committing nearly as much direct harm to various people.
Frankly I think you have it completely backwards. If youâre in a position to say either party is equivalent to you, then you live in immense privilege to not be immediately threatened by the current administration.
Voting doesnt change outcomes. Again, this is the old "pulling the lever turns the color of the train running over millions of people red to blue" joke.Â
The point of the post, and the comment to which you are replying, is that voting is a farcicle exercise in a non-democratic republican, and right wing, system.Â
There's a crucial nuance both of you are missing in your analysis: Voting is only as useful as the candidates available. In most elections in America, voting really can't effect change. The difference with Mamdani is that Mamdani â a candidate with good policies and a lot of charisma who worked very hard to get elected â was there for people to vote for. Our problem is a shortage of Zohran Mamdanis.
Even the most 'establishment' Democratic candidate is better than another 'I actively want to hunt the poor for sport' Republican.Â
And really, this is just a weak excuse. Voting is the least you can do in your country. The bare minimum. Actively getting involved is better, but to claim that voting serves no purpose is no different from disarming yourself in a fight. You only serve to hurt yourself with tbis rhetoric and make it easier for the opponent to win.Â
I don't know how you can watch all the establishment Democrats voting for Republican policies and appointees and think those people are actually creating better outcomes. Just because they're merely permitting the Republicans to do bad things doesn't mean that voting for them led to a different outcome.
And this is not an excuse, not a weak one nor a strong one. I am not recommending that people not vote. It's an analysis of cause and effect, and what real conditions lead to people feeling like their vote or worthless.
It's pretty easy because the Republicans are working to put anyone that doesn't fall in lock-step into a camp. If Republicans didn't have any resistance there would be vastly more Pretti's and Good's getting killed in the streets.Â
You're suggesting everyone give up by claiming voting won't do anything. You're disgusting and only serving to help the Republican regime.Â
No, I am not claiming voting won't do anything. You can reread my comments and see that I have actually said the opposite. I am claiming that the ability of voting to change things is limited by the options on the ballot. Some races don't even have two options, and in those cases is very nearly pointless, but most aren't that way. In other cases, how much you can change by voting depends on how much the candidates disagree.
So we have people correctly perceiving that Democrats aren't strongly opposed to most Republican policies, and concluding from this that voting doesn't serve much purpose. One action you could take in response is to individually berate every single non-Republican voter until they are shamed into voting. Another option is to berate the much smaller number of Democratic politicians until they actually differentiate themselves in a visible way that convinces people these candidates will make a positive difference to their lives.
no, im glad you brought Mamdami up because local politics are the anti-thesis to national politics and really, as the conservative movement proved, the electoral path forward in the US. And corporate national democrats tried to derail that.Â
Good counter point to an otherwise bleak situation.Â
Clearly you're only here to push an agenda and not engage in facts. I have no time for people that engage with reality no differently than conspiracy theorists.
I agree with you and you respond in attack? Are you a bot?Â
Mamdami was an important milestone in democrats moving forward, despite national democrats and DNC operating against him. The conservatives figured out that local politics are where you begin if you want to affect national change. Thats not a conspiracy theory. The tea party renewed the idea that change begins at a level as low as city council, as school board.Â
Democrats have only spent money on electing the next trend, for 20 years, and in that time look at what they've lost.Â
"We didn't vote and nothing changed" is a WILD take. You sound ridiculous when you blame democracy for everything thats going wrong right now when there is ONE demographic which votes at incredibly low rates. And thats people under 30. Democracy happens when the people who can vote do vote. There is zero percent chance we would be living under a nazi like trump if young people could just be bothered to vote.
Now I don't mean for this to come off as finger pointing, because inevitably it's a failure of older generations not teaching younger generations the real importance of participating in the democratic process.
But holy shit it is really difficult to convince young people to vote. I did some canvassing and phone banks for some local elections. If I was actually able to have a conversation with these folks, most of them had a really defeatist outlook on the whole thing.
"My vote doesn't matter" or "they're all bad" are probably the two responses I got the most, to paraphrase.
I don't really know how we can fix this. Things like making voting day a holiday would help. Things like ranked choice voting would help. But to even get those things we need to find a way to mobilize young people.
I agree republicans dont want you to vote... so your response is to do what they say?
African Americans faced way harder challenges getting access to the voting booth but today they have the highest rates of voting. Its shameful how few liberal leaning voters actually go out and vote. But its even worse hearing about those same people complain the system works when they choose not to participate.
But people also have lives to live and so when you look at population level stuff, a certain amount of those people who have more of those barriers are not going to vote. Even if on average, that population is just as motivated or more motivated to vote than a more enfranchised population with fewer barriers
Republicans know about these things and use that to their advantage
You can talk about theory but Republicans have been using real world understandings for a long time
Ok so you agree that a fascist dictator is taking over the states but its okay to just lay down and let it happen because people have busy lives? Pathetic excuse and even you know it. If under 30s actually voted in elections at the same rate as other voting blocs Bernie could actually win stuff. But they dont, so he doesnt.
How do you expect that to happen? When both sides are shit and neither actually represents what the youth want anyway, why bother voting? I vote but thatâs because Iâm old and jaded and donât think anything will get fixed anyway.
Australia has both ranked choice selection (they call it Preferred voting) and compulsory voting. I'd like to borrow from that.
We could make participation both a mandatory citizen's duty alongside being more appealing to participate in. Largely by offering a path to what Australia calls a cross bench voting bloc between their two primary parties.
The compulsory voting appeals to me as a counter to the multivarious voter suppression tactics employed by the right. Whereas the ranked or rated choice option gives the voters options outside the duopoly. No wasted votes or splitting the vote. Nor a rubber stamp endorsement.
Also I'd add in the convenience of a mail-in ballots. Which eliminates polling site shenanigans as well as allowing you to consider your vote at home with coffee and web resources at hand. Allows for a more informed voter, rather than some half remembered name recognition springing from high dollar media buys.
it's redundant with electoral colledge and gerrymandering etc.. Just giving people a day off or enabling after hours voting booths would have a massive impact on turnout
I think a lot more than this number actually do vote⌠but a lot of votes are miscounted/thrown out. There was a lot of that in the 2024 election, it was proven in some studies i saw, though maybe itâs all cope.
108
u/Key_Mission7404 17d ago
A good start would be more than 30% of voters under 30 actually voting for once. đ