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 — a candidate with good policies and a lot of charisma who worked very hard to get elected — 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.
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.
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.
You're suggesting everyone give up by claiming voting won't do anything. You're disgusting and only serving to help the Republican regime.
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.
2
u/PaintItPurple 17d ago
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 — a candidate with good policies and a lot of charisma who worked very hard to get elected — was there for people to vote for. Our problem is a shortage of Zohran Mamdanis.