Poll: Is not voting ever a good political strategy?

fairly weary of this conversation on ilx (thus I appreciate Aimless's attempt to quarantine it!), but reading all the posts so far makes me think that there's a kind of philosphical problem here: voting is about predicting the future -- "outcomes" as JCLC just put it -- something one cannot fully do strategically because they cannot be known in advance.

four years ago I wouldn't have predicted the Democrats would have moved so sharply right on policing, the border, immigration & asylum, the death penalty (absent from the platform for the first time in decades), Iran, etc. (I know there are left equivalents too, no need to remind me). so, unhelpful post alert: I think the logic is flawed and the basic foundations of these arguments are so speculative you end up debating whether, say, trump is really going to nuke Gaza or some other fantasy.

the other thought I had reading the thread: sounds like the more truly effective strategy would be to vote for the other party, not just abstain. We all lived through 600 years of white working class man voter discourse post-2016. Of course advocating for this on ilx would end up with every single poster permabanned

This question is all about context and assumptions so I will just write in "it depends".

As others have noted, there are circumstances where abstaining achieves nothing, where it's largely symbolic. At least you let them know you didn't like the options.

I would argue there are circumstances where a blank vote is not neutral, because you are actually withdrawing your vote from A and indirectly favoring B. At least in a polarized democratic exercise, it's a bad strategy if you actually care (i.e. think there's a lesser of two evils) but do not cast your vote because you wish for a hypothetical good C, that may never happen. My voting strategy would be along the lines of choosing the one that offers the nearest path to C, and I would only abstain if A/B are indistinguishable or both so abhorrent that it's a question of dignity.

So I guess the most interesting case is indeed the circumstances where a blank vote can function as more or less collective message of general discontent, and we can enter into some philosophical questions about when it's acceptable for your reasons to be lumped together with others.

One of the things I think is good about voting (on a societal level not an individual one) is it helps with transitions of power, something which non-democratic systems can struggle with, as is less clear where power is during a period of flux such as after a leaders death, and the mechanisms of determining that are less clear, which can be hazardous. Potentially outcomes are...generally less fraught

is anybody here going to change their mind on whether they vote, or who they vote for, by what someone on ilx says about the strategic value of their decision?

I think there's a general assumption that people are fixed on everything and don't change their minds, and I believe this to be much less the case than it appears. People change their minds on things all the time. its might not happen overnight (although it might), but in my experience people are much more malleable than is often assumed

I should qualify that. I think I mean more that lots of view people have on things are held with relatively low levels of conviction

arent you the guy who has spent six years convincing an imaginary cpusin not to vote trump or something

I voted yes, because I can imagine scenarios where not voting could be effective to help achieve certain ends. That said, I’m very much with JCLC. I do not consider my vote some holy relic or rite that can only be bestowed on those truly and fully worthy, nor do I see it as some blood pact whereby I accept responsibility for all of that candidate’s views or actions in perpetuity. It’s a small lever we all have, and I try to use it wisely under whatever the circumstances are.

I should probably qualify there as to say that people hold views with varying levels of conviction, and that while views can be very fixed they are not necessarily so

. I'm picking between outcomes.

How do you know the outcomes? And if the outcomes are ones that you disagree with, and are almost assured to be in many cases, then what choice is there?

"no difference between the parties" Nader voters asked that question that and we got George Bush in the process.

A lot of this also hinges on living in a small handful of states, at least if we are talking about the US. My vote in the presidential election as a NYer has zero conceivable strategic value either way. I honestly just do it to not take my ability and right to vote for granted. Maybe if I truly believed our elections were not free and fair I’d withhold my vote.

Also, this discussion primarily applies to presidential elections. I have had the experience of seeing a small number of voter have a very consequential impact I. Local elections.

I, too, am skeptical of the idea that a single well-reasoned and well-presented argument, whether it is posted here on ilx or delivered through some other means, has much effect on the opinions or convictions of those who read it. I think a more realistic model is that when a person encounters such arguments from various sources they are somewhat familiar with and consider trustworthy in other matters, the weight of those arguments is cumulative and may shift the perspective of the recipient.

The mechanism at work there is simple enough. A single exposure to contrary ideas from a familiar and sometimes trusted source can be dismissed from the mind as an oddity and then swiftly forgotten. As such exposures to contradictions are repeated the pressure to resolve them increases. When the 'memory hole' you've been dropping them into gets too full it becomes clear that you'll need to reconsider your trust in those sources or else reconsider your conviction/opinion/belief.

It can go either way. You can lose your trust and distance yourself from everyone who contradicts you, or you can open yourself to revising your ideas. It is often a matter of which option seems more painful or costly. But sometimes revising your ideas is the low cost pathway, especially when the alternative is to isolate yourself from a large chunk of your social circle.

So, I think having these arguments can have an effect, even though we don't see it immediately. It's not just shouting down a well for the pleasure of hearing your voice reverberate against the stones.

idk many of you have had an influence -- direct and indirect -- on my decisions. Certainly my daily exposure to many of you has deepened my chronic ambivalences.

"no difference between the parties" Nader voters asked that question that and we got George Bush in the process.

― j.o.h.n. in evanston (john. a resident of chicago.), Sunday, August 25, 2024 10:36 AM (eleven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Love when people whip out this old saw instead of making an argument of any substance. “eat the shit and like it”

At least the discussion here is good at taking in the breadth of history and geography that "ever" implies.

How do you know the outcomes? And if the outcomes are ones that you disagree with, and are almost assured to be in many cases, then what choice is there?

This doesn't have to be complicated: You are choosing between the outcomes that seem likely based on what the candidates have said and done, and you weigh pros and cons to determine which overall outcome is preferable.

Do you want to live in a world in which candidate X is in office vs. a world in which candidate Y is in office?

I don’t want a world with candidates or offices!

My campus office is nice -- it even has a door.

Someone’s been “job”-pilled

xxp...okay, but i'm the making arguments without substance.

How do you know the outcomes? And if the outcomes are ones that you disagree with, and are almost assured to be in many cases, then what choice is there?

you have a loose idea of the outcomes, as do I. neither are good; one is, invariably, less bad, unless we're doing the "there's this one thing that's bad which makes any other math un-doable." I understand this position, but I don't hold it. if one candidate will cut welfare and the other will cut welfare more, the first candidate is better, even if both candidates are, say, literal ax murderers. I'm going to get one of the two anyway; if me and all my friends abstain from voting for conscience, it won't have any effect, at all, on this system -- the system is fine with me staying home, it putters on, harming many and helping few. I think there's a case to be made for "I spent election day volunteering at the food bank and thereby did more good," but for me, voting for the Democrat will result in a few things here or there that make me prefer them in office. I don't think it "makes no difference," as many say -- it does make a positive difference, here and there; not in enough places, but here or there is enough for me. there's no issue on which I'd say "it'd be better to have a Republican in office for this". that's enough to get me to the polls, I don't think me not voting makes the Democrats look at the outcome and say "geez we should have done more to stop the genocide in Gaza." I don't think refusing to vote will have any positive effect for Gaza. my vote probably won't either, but I'm voting for the outcome that might do marginally more in the many areas about which I care.

"no difference between the parties" Nader voters asked that question that and we got George Bush in the process.

DLC Democrats decided to do the Ickey Shuffle on everyone to their left (shortly after WTO protests and with a nascent progressive wing reappearing in the party itself) with Liebermann's nomination and we got George Bush in the process.

Whatever other arguments you want to make, votes are owed to and owned by no one - if a candidate or party makes explicit its disdain for a group of voters it can't really be mad when those voters don't turn out.

My dad had a saying, "you pays your nickel and you takes your choice". A vote is your nickel. In terms of elections it doesn't look like much until it gets pooled with a lot of others. It's also why it has more value in local elections.

I think a more interesting question might be if there are any issues that would make ilxors *not vote* for the Dems? since ax murdering isn't going to show up on the platform ever. obviously for almost all of you the genocide in Palestine isn't it, but is there any line you would draw? partially thinking here about the stark difference between this issue in USpol threads and the UK one

my hot take is that there is exactly one instance where a non-vote is strategically good: when an office is uncontested. if the only candidate is gop, the outcome is already known, so the null vote at least communicates a desire for an alternative candidate. but you have to show up to do that, too.

yes, agree strongly with that

I think a more interesting question might be if there are any issues that would make ilxors *not vote* for the Dems? since ax murdering isn't going to show up on the platform ever. obviously for almost all of you the genocide in Palestine isn't it, but is there any line you would draw? partially thinking here about the stark difference between this issue in USpol threads and the UK one

for me it's hard to imagine any such issue, because as I say, my vote is just "which one of these assholes do you think might do any good at all." I expect the Democrats to be awful in a number of areas. for me it's just a question of "what does my not voting for a Democratic accomplish?" nothing; voting accomplishes very nearly nothing, but it's not actually me saying "I'm fine with all you're doing." twenty years ago the genocide in Gaza would absolutely have stopped me from voting for them; so would their failure to protect abortion; 81 of them voted for war on Iraq, a historical atrocity of such magnitude that people have mainly stopped talking about it. middle aged me considers, as I've said, that you are going to get one of them, and that voting is not an expression of personal conscience.

It's hard for me to imagine not voting for a Democratic candidate for a high office like president, governor, senator, or congressional rep. For one, those are offices where third parties are not viable, so the winner of the general election is always going to be either a Democrat or a Republican (unless it's an independent who caucused with one of the major parties like Bernie Sanders). For another, those offices have responsibility over a wide set of issue areas, and on the whole, I agree with the Democratic set of policy positions more than the Republican set of policy positions. Even as I agree with some Democrats more than others, I have not had the experience where an individual Democrat's overall positions are so bad that the Republican's positions are more appealing.

Local races are different. The Democratic Party is dominant where I live, so Republicans are almost never possibilities. Also, the scope of responsibilities for a local office is more limited, so it's often more about who is more competent, less corrupt, etc. As such, I occasionally vote for Green Party candidates for metropolitan water district board or whatever.

I have in the past voted for the stray local Republican candidate when it’s someone I think is generally competent and the Dems haven’t bothered to run a real candidate so the D line is occupied by some sketchy grifter or kook. Fortunately our local Democratic Party has gotten better about contesting races, so that scenario happens much less often. The other situation where I will vote for a Republican is if I like one of the candidates in a republican primary a lot more than the other one. I will still generally vote against them in the general election if there is a decent Democratic candidate, but since we have open primaries I am happy to try to veto the worst Republicans when I get a chance.

Political strategies can all fuck off

― This is Dance Anthems, have some respect (Camaraderie at Arms Length),

wish we'd been able to tell MLK!

― the talented mr pimply (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

i mean i think you make a good implicit point here, which is that "political strategies" aren't, like, individual acts. they're highly organized, they're work, and they don't take place exclusively, or even necessarily predominantly, at the ballot box. voting or not voting as an individual is _not a viable political strategy_. like, not to get too wonkish here, but can someone vote or not vote tactically? sure. strategically? wow that's overestimating the case.

i don't personally believe in voting for tactical reasons. i don't see evidence that how i vote can be tactically effective in any case. my vote is personal, and is based on my values, my principles, my understanding of the facts, and in large part, by my emotions. i don't mind this. i think it's fine for me to vote or not vote out of spite. if someone disagrees with that decision, you know, that's cool, but it doesn't mean that i'm personally in a position where i'm going to actually listen to them. that's the main reason i stay out of the politics threads. i have a lot of opinions, but there's this expectation that i'm supposed to discourse or engage with people when, like, i don't necessarily care how they feel about what i'm saying. i don't feel like defending myself or being cross-examined. and i feel like maybe a lot of other people are the same way. i do think there's some evidence that suggests this is the case, that if somebody's going to change their mind they have to be open to it, and if they're not open to it, arguing with them is just going to entrench people's feelings and it gets to the point where people just start, like, cross-examining each other.

if we're gonna talk about things on the personal level, yes. people here have had major effects on my decisions. including whether or not i voted, yes. i don't count that as one of the more significant ways being on ilx has helped guide me, one of the more significant ways people here have helped me grow. to me, voting, particularly in the us on a presidential level, is _not_ one of the more significant political acts one can undertake. i think it's a fairly minor act. politics, to me, that's about my values and believes and how i live them. i don't think politics happens once every four years any more than the preachers at the churches i went to believed that religion only existed on christmas and easter.

and maybe that's why i find all these arguments about voting or not voting silly. it's like arguing whether or not someone should go to church on christmas. do i think it's a _bad thing_ for people to do? not really.

xp god it must be nice to live in a state with open primaries

I can fully understand US women voting for an ugly bullshit centre-right political party of genocide because their reproductive rights are on the ballot and US trans people for their right to exist. And stick with the party with a nose peg on, because the alternative is life threatening in a very real way. But there will never be any meaningful change until there is a mass popular movement to break capitalism and it's stranglehold on corrupt client states is my take on this. This will just repeating over and over again ad infinitum "most important election ever" etc...

pretty much my take as well

I think most of us realize that voting, considered in isolation, is one of the least effective political acts available to us, but that does not render it entirely meaningless in our patchwork system of governance, where at each level, whether it is cities, counties, school districts, state legislatures, or Congress. At every level what gets done eventually come down to who has the higher number of votes. Whoever has the votes gets to control tax revenues, what is or isn't the law, or who sits on our courts. It's a pyramid of power and we sit at the very bottom, but our puny votes are still the foundation it is built on.

When you get up into the more effective political acts you move from a simple act that takes minimal effort to expending much larger amounts of time and energy. Most of us can only rise a short distance above the minimum, but some of us, like ilxors jjjusten, alfred lord sotosyn, or hoosteen, manage to inject that higher level of commitment. If you want to break capitalism instead of voting, hey, you have our blessing. Go hog wild! We're behind you cheering.

loudly threatening to withhold your vote for specific reason(s), and making sure the votee is aware of that - classic
not bothering to vote at all - dud

IHIBIDTAE

btw, it's worth considering that one of the most basic strategies employed by the conservative opposition is to do everything possible to prevent, deflect, or suppress voting, from intimidation, to voter ID laws, to gerrymandering, or simply convincing as many people as possible that voting is an empty futile gesture that will never make a dime's worth of difference to their lives. Maybe they know something about voting we aren't acknowledging.

xxp
you see, if I was a narcissist I wouldn't be so happy open myself up to ridicule here! It just bothers me that if people don't support the status quo then it is a form of narcissism according to parts of this thread. I'm benefits scum, so my opposition to garbage centrist policies and politicians is at least a significant % of self-interest group concern as well. Anyway I'll go away in peace, because it is mainly a US pol thread.

As I learned yesterday meeting with otherwise intelligent, engaged late middle-age voters, many if not most Democrats have no interest in destroying capitalism -- the Central and South American exiles are particularly passionate about Reclaiming The Flag and Taking Patriotism Back from the GOP.

Younger voters are another story.

loudly threatening to withhold your vote for specific reason(s), and making sure the votee is aware of that - classic
not bothering to vote at all - dud

Mostly agree with this but obviously as soon as you admit that this is what you are doing the threat becomes meaningless.

How do you mean? I would have thought the opposite is true. and was the entire rationals of Uncommitted?

Interesting that less than half of self-identified Democrats have a positive view of capitalism, at least per Pew in 2022 — while majority had a positive view of socialism. Don't feel like that's particularly represented by the party!

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/

As soon as you admit that you are threatening to withold your vote but will never actually do so (i.e. not bothering to vote at all) your threat can be disregarded - you're kicking up a fuss but your vote is still guaranteed.

xpost

I’d like to vote for the party and not the candidate. This year it’s lot easier to do that if you’re a dem. Which I’m not

I can fully understand US women voting for an ugly bullshit centre-right political party of genocide because their reproductive rights are on the ballot and US trans people for their right to exist. And stick with the party with a nose peg on, because the alternative is life threatening in a very real way. But there will never be any meaningful change until there is a mass popular movement to break capitalism and it's stranglehold on corrupt client states is my take on this. This will just repeating over and over again ad infinitum "most important election ever" etc...

― vodkaitamin effrtvescent (calzino)

i didn't vote biden in '20, and i figure, you know, i figure i'll vote harris/walz in '24.

a couple of years ago i believed strongly, you know, believed strongly that we needed a mass popular movement to break capitalism, and i wanted to be a part of that, i wanted to be part of making that happen

and you know it's not on me. it's not on me to do that. i figure things will change eventually. i'd like things to have changed by now. i don't believe it can go on like this forever. i'm not the one to tell this old world how to get along, right? but i do need to get along myself. however i can.

and voting isn't that big a part of it for me. i don't think it'll make that much of a difference in my life, personally. i could be surprised. i just got bigger and more immediate threats than Project 2025. threats that have a lot to do with, like, not having economic security, not having really good economic prospects. if capitalism can figure out how to give me that stuff, fine. i don't believe it can. and as long as i don't believe it can, i can't really say i'm sticking with the party.

at this point, you know, they're not listening to me either way. they're gonna do what they want to do no matter how i vote. if we get a chance, if we get the power to where they have to listen, they have to take us seriously... i mean, maybe some day. i don't think it's gonna be through elections. so they keep on making their empty promises and i keep giving them my empty vote, hollow exchange, words, coins, movements.

i got plenty of hope and i got friends who are worried about what's gonna happen in november and it's not up to me. if i live, i live, if i die, i die. i'm going to keep trying to live, keep trying to enjoy life, as best i can. it's not easy.

not having economic security, not having really good economic prospects. if capitalism can figure out how to give me that stuff, fine. i don't believe it can.

yep, same

As soon as you admit that you are threatening to withold your vote but will never actually do so (i.e. not bothering to vote at all) your threat can be disregarded - you're kicking up a fuss but your vote is still guaranteed.

I thought the value in doing this was that the vote was a) not guaranteed, but b) gettable, but that it is only the signalling that makes it so, otherwise a non-vote is indistinguishable from that of someone who was busy that day

I had interpreted sleeve to be saying "classic to threaten to withold, dud to actually do so", which I basically agree with but with the problem I mentioned.

Oh yeah, I think any kind of leverage has to have a degree of uncertainty about it

I've been trying to collect my thoughts on this- not that the world is waiting for me to chime in, especially since I don't think I have anything new to say. I think this is a loaded question- the "ever" is what gets me. Yes, I'm sure there are some situations where it is a good strategy, but our discussion here and now is largely focused on the 2024 US election, which is a very specific situation. Our election system in the US is hugely flawed. The fact that we have two "real" parties (both of which want to maintain a good chunk of the status quo) and the other parties can serve only as spoilers means that our votes don't feel as meaningful as they should. Even more problematic is the amount of money and corporate interest that is poured into political campaigns- which shapes our political climate and entrenches a lot of what most of us hate about US politics and policies. How did we get there? The Roberts Supreme Court holds a lot of blame. Will withholding votes "fix" our broken system in any way, or will it make the Court any better? Not if it helps Republicans into the presidency or any other office. Republicans at this point are the party of making things worse, faster. The party of cheating their way to power, entrenching that power, and overriding the will of the voters. I'm not here to say that everyone here has to vote for Harris, or has to vote at all. That is a personal and private decision. But I can say that I feel that voting for Harris is the least I can do to help start tipping the scales back in the right direction. Really I should be doing a lot more, but in my mind I have to do that, at least. I voted for Hillary in 2016, but up to that point I was not what I would describe as a dedicated voter. I usually voted in presidential elections, but seldom in midterms or local elections. If there was one thing the Trump presidency taught me, it was to vote every chance I get. Job number one in my mind is to keep Republicans out of office. I understand wanting to withhold your vote to apply pressure for change, but I'm not sure it will accomplish that. It's just another tally in the "these people don't vote so we don't have to worry about them" column. And in our existing, hugely flawed political system, which voting or not voting will not change, anything that does not contribute to a Harris win is contributing to a Trump win. And I understand wanting to pressure Biden into changing his policies- as president, he has taken direct action to support Israel's attacks on Gaza. But Harris is not president yet. She has not yet outlined her policies, and in my mind, she just has not shown her hand yet. Which I can't blame her for- promising at this point to change our existing policy on Israel would expose a weak flank to Republicans which they would certainly attack and exploit. Her calculation could be that she needs to wait until after the election. I'm more than willing to give her that chance. In my mind, it's win the election first- preferably by a landslide which impacts downballot races and keeps Republicans out of every office we can. First keep Republicans out of power, then apply pressure to make the changes that we want.

But Harris is not president yet. She has not yet outlined her policies, and in my mind, she just has not shown her hand yet.

She made sure to toe the 'I will always ensure Israel maintains its ability to defend itself' party line in her big convention speech. Harris has outlined her policies and they are "nothing's going to change in regard to Israel." Like maybe she'll have a slightly frownier face when she feels Palestinians' pain before authorizing weapons sales to the state actively committing genocide (but probably not even that, Biden's face has been plenty frowny).

If enabling genocide isn't your line in the sand on supporting Democrats/Harris (for whatever reason that might be), fine. That's not a point to be argued, no one's mind is going to be changed.

But for the love of god please stop lying to yourself (or all of us) that you're just not sure what she's gonna do.

io otm and that was my last point really

agree, i do think it's related to Aimless's point about visibility

I think io did a great job of laying out a concise summary of what's required for not-voting to become something directed and politically effective, as opposed to a private personal act that exerts no leverage over policy.

i do think there's possibility for a worthwhile discussion around the topic of "how can abstaining from voting be used strategically by a group of people to achieve a specific, concrete objective?"

however, i can empathize with posters who see the thread premise as a vacuous intellectual exercise, or an attempt to downplay or extricate the personal from the political, or even a kind of intrusion or accusation. and of course, just as we have the right to coordinate and to organize politically, we also have a right to say "fuck you, it's none of your business who i'm voting for." but i do think that there is vulnerability and sacrifice that's at the heart of activism. and so i guess what i'd say is that the only interpretation of this poll that makes any sense to me is, "can coordinated non-voting function as activism?" at which point a whole different discussion arises, maybe, one that can contain the details of biography and inner life that are intertwined with our political acts and which drive us to embrace that values that make us want to enact changes in the first place. in other words, a dialectical understanding of the premise that understands that thinking strategically doesn't preclude us from centering the lived experiences which give our politics substance and meaning. with the added caveat that meaningfully and substantively engaging with politics pretty much means inviting derision, sometimes from ppl who would otherwise share your vision based on shared beliefs. idk

at which point a whole different discussion arises, maybe, one that can contain the details of biography and inner life that are intertwined with our political acts and which drive us to embrace that values that make us want to enact changes in the first place. in other words, a dialectical understanding of the premise that understands that thinking strategically doesn't preclude us from centering the lived experiences which give our politics substance and meaning.

I mean, sure? Like, yes, this is always true at the same time as other things are also true?

Idk I think part of my current lived understanding is that I listened to someone carry on and on last night about how it's impossible to ever truly know The Self and how can you possibly separate all the things that people are a product of, was there ever really an immutable self at all? and so on, with BONUS added strident islamophobia. Like okay, it's fine to think about that but maybe if you care that much, do something to help in the real world that affects people?

I'm probably just tired.

I get it. And I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt rather than sticking with the initial reaction. I have no idea why I felt compelled to share my own perspective/reasoning for voting. It wasn't even the full picture, just my #1 reason. I've always been a D voter, always felt those ideals strongly (despite the party's flaws), it's just that what really brought it home to me on a personal level is having a young daughter growing up in the midst of the ongoing fallout from the Trump era, where her rights are actively being taken away. I know that's been other people's lived reality for a long, long time. Nobody needed to hear my cis white male, privileged, hegemonic perspective. But I haven't lived your experiences, or DJP's experiences, or anyone else's, so I can only speak to my own perspective, and hope it can be seen as it was intended- an expression of solidarity and the desire to be a better ally to all.

― epistantophus

well, everybody will take things differently, and like i'm sure there are people who will be frustrated and complain about some cis white male sharing his perspective as if we haven't heard enough cis white men already. maybe some other time i would've been frustrated and complained about that. all i can say for myself is that i'm glad you were willing to share your perspective... that you got pushback doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong of you to speak up. that's the thing... that's the thing i've had to work really hard on learning. in the past a lot of times people would talk about their perspectives and i felt like as a "cis white man" what i thought wasn't important, that i should keep my mouth shut and not say anything. and sometimes, honestly, that probably is the wiser move, and a lot of times i open my mouth anyway.

i just... i'm just critically reflecting on what you said, and i don't think it was entitled. i believe you were talking about your values. sometimes i see people whose lives are so different from mine, and i just can't believe people live lives that are... that seem to me to be so trivial, by comparison. i was listening to an ad on the radio the way back home from work and it was for a bank talking about how they help out parents who want to send their kids to tennis camp. and it was just hard for me to believe that these were real people, that these were real concerns people have. just because i don't encounter them every day, though, doesn't mean they're not real, doesn't mean parents worrying about sending their kid to tennis camp doesn't _matter_.

i mean if we are going to prioritize, you know, what's more important, trans people's right to exist or a suburban parent's ability to send their kid to tennis camp, i'd look askance at anybody who would say the latter was as important as the former. everyone counts. it's also, like, important to me that you count specifically as a _cis white man_ and not as a "normal person". it's context. it's context, and it's important to me. it's important to me to be around people who aren't like me, to believe that... i can have things in common with cis white men, really. that i can _communicate_ with people who live something approximating "normal" lives. because i really don't, and i really badly want to. something approximating normal. not actually normal, but something where i don't spend as much of my time feeling fucked up and weird and inadequate.

idk. i just remember the ways i got it wrong, the ways in which a lot of ways i still get it wrong, and it's important for me to say that equity doesn't necessarily mean "cis white men need to keep their fucking mouths shut".

much love to everyone here, whether you vote, however you vote, whatever your reasons are or aren't.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

I'm not convinced that voting in a poll was the most accurate way to gauge sentiment on this topic

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

From the OP:

The poll aspect of this thread is just bait to try to compartmentalize the endless back-and-forth in the US Politics threads about the wisdom or efficacy of not voting as a political strategy.