Poll: Is not voting ever a good political strategy?

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.

I guess it would be one thing if Trump was vowing to stop sending weapons to Israel, so you would have to weigh that against all the very real harms his administration is going to do. but we know he's not, and that in fact the official GOP platform on this is that Israel should "finish the job", so the idea of withholding your vote out of concern for the Palestinian people feels a little self-defeating to me. it reminds me of the folks who refuse to vote because the Dems climate platform is inadequate for them - if you're enabling the party promising to make Exxon-Mobil in charge of the EPA, how much do you care really? thing is I understand the logic it just sucks our political system is so fucked.

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.

I’ve said my piece, but I think this is inappropriate.

What I know for sure is what Trump would do if he gets back in office. Don’t tell me I know what will happen otherwise or that I am lying to myself or anyone else.

What I know for sure is what Trump would do if he gets back in office.

Israel will pursue a genocide against Palestinians living in Gaza and ethnic cleansing against Palestinians living in the West Bank? So like... what's happening now?

Man, I’m not here to argue with you. I just gave my perspective and that’s it. Obviously your own elevated perspective has been enshrined as protected from getting shouted down here. Maybe you can show the same consideration to people who don’t agree with you.

I think there are other politics threads for this. Many, many, many of them. You don't have to "correct" what is just a detail in a larger post about the thread topic. Not that I can stop you...

honestly, i think i am going to remove my bookmarks from this thread and the politics thread. it’s simply not worth the depression that i am filled with every time i open them.

that's probably a good idea, tabes. no sense in just making yourself feel bad when its avoidable. see you in other threads that aren't such a drag on you.

Apologies, I’m done

Sorry, I should have made it clear my comment about an unnecessary correction was directed at milo, not epistantophus.

lol the narratives crafted in order to comfort people into never withholding a vote are not 'a minor correction,' they're fundamental to this question even getting floated in the bullshit way it has been here

yep this is just another Aimless troll thread

Sleeve, since you've just discovered this is a troll thread, I suppose you'll apply the common bit of wisdom of not feeding the troll.

As for milo, you are free to post whatever you think is apt, as am I. Neither of us controls what gets written here. I'm not a mod.

Im not quite sure what’s going on but it appears that you seem to have started this thread with false presumptions regarding why certain folks/ilxors are “not voting” and using that to just push the whole spread off the table regarding why people “don’t vote”

Selling out vs. Handing the keys to the kingdom to Mephistopheles.

Not to relativise or anything, but can't we all empathise that both actions are repugnant and inflict moral injury?

trolley problems all the way down

you seem to have started this thread with false presumptions regarding why certain folks/ilxors are “not voting”

not sure why you got that idea. this debate has cropped up with depressing regularity on the US politics threads for years. this thread was explicitly started to keep the back and forth on the merits of not voting segregated in its own corner of the ilx universe. where did you find me expressing these false assumptions?

Interesting to compare with how little friction there was on this question with the UK poll. Most people in UK ilx voted, and much of the country in the end chose to stay home in one of the lowest turnouts.

Its 4th July, you live in rainy fash island..

yes, a comfortable majority of people voted, but it's kind of crazy to me that a full 20% did not. among the U.S. electorate as a whole, that would be considered extremely good turnout, but I'd be shocked if ILXor turnout in a general U.S. election was less than 90%.

yes, there are a couple of people who have made noise about not voting, but the reason there is friction is because that is such a fringe position among the type of people who post on ILX, who I think generally see voting as a civic responsibility, are engaged with the stakes of the election, and don't face the structural impediments that prevent many Americans from voting.

Considering that there used to be laws explicitly preventing me from voting and people died to change them so that I could vote without fear of death or reprisal, and furthermore that offshoots of the attitudes and conditions that fueled those laws led to the direct murders of two of my great-grandfathers, I have a very strong emotional reaction to the act of voting. It is absolutely the least I can do but there were multiple people in generations before me who thought it was so important that I have the opportunity to do it that they literally risked death and some of them were killed. I don’t think I would be holding up my end of the bargain if I didn’t vote at every opportunity presented to me.

Interesting to compare with how little friction there was on this question with the UK poll. Most people in UK ilx voted, and much of the country in the end chose to stay home in one of the lowest turnouts.

Its 4th July, you live in rainy fash island..🕸

Yeah sure, for me I guess it didn't matter even if the polling between Tories and Lab were a lot closer. I could've never, ever have turned out for this iteration of Labour.

A Lib Dem/Labour marginal would have provided the biggest moral test lol. Into the orange embrace? Oh god probably

I’ve already done it once (2010 & I’ve never been let forget it even though it was in a rock solid Labour seat).

Oh I did it too then haha

LIVE AND LEARN

"who I think generally see voting as a civic responsibility, are engaged with the stakes of the election"

From what I've seen the people making noises are highly engaged and sound like they have a sense of civic responsibility.

Certainly for my part I have been highly engaged, and know the issues closely but, in the UK, I felt literally no difference in outcome.

From what I've seen the people making noises are highly engaged and sound like they have a sense of civic responsibility.

Which is precisely why others have reacted so strongly. Most Americans who don't vote are either fundamentally disengaged from politics or unable to take the time to vote. These reasons are understandable. But if you are engaged and have a sense of responsibility and the ability to do so, why *wouldn't* you vote? Maybe I live in a bubble, but voting feels like a social norm; if I didn't vote, I'd be ashamed to admit it.

Even if you know that it won't make a difference in outcome, you vote because that's what you do as a citizen.

We need to define "voting," though. Several people on this thread won't vote for president but have elsewhere admitted they vote in local races.

"But if you are engaged and have a sense of responsibility and the ability to do so, why *wouldn't* you vote?"

From skimming the US pol threads I think its fairly easy to have a take on why people aren't voting.

In any case, casting the act of voting as a natural consequence of being engaged and being a civic minded, responsible adult is just funny to me. Its hardly an illegal, transgressive act.

I also think we should ask why there are permanent, sizeable numbers of people that are not in any way engaged with this so called incredibly important act.

voter suppression

and the racism and sexism that motivates voter suppression

In any case, casting the act of voting as a natural consequence of being engaged and being a civic minded, responsible adult is just funny to me. Its hardly an illegal, transgressive act.

I also think we should ask why there are permanent, sizeable numbers of people that are not in any way engaged with this so called incredibly important act.

I don't understand how the second sentence relates to the first, unless "its" = not voting? I guess I feel like that *is* sort of transgressive, among people who are engaged/civic-minded/educated/etc.

And I already said why many people do not vote. As m bison pointed out, voter suppression is another big factor.

Suppression is real, but apathy is real-er. A lot of people just feel very far removed from politics. They’re focused on/stressed about their own daily lives, they don’t necessarily see much difference from one president or governor to another — not because there AREN’T differences that they could observe, but because they’re tuned out to a degree that they don’t really see cause and effect. Government programs, tax credits, that kind of stuff to a lot of people is like the weather, it comes and goes according to forces beyond their control.

And this is most accompanies by a superficial cynicism enterprise, “They’re all crooks” etc, which is not exactly wrong, of course.

"I guess I feel like that *is* sort of transgressive, among people who are engaged/civic-minded/educated/etc."

Getting a 'not turning out to vote is what uneducated people do' vibe here.

Which I think is an issue that goes beyond voter suppression (which sure is an issue in the US, not gonna sit here and deny it, but it isn't much of a factor in the UK

xp OK yes, right

unless "its" = not voting?

Sorry yes, not voting is what I meant.

there are good reasons to be cynical about voting. if you live in 43 of the 50 states, your individual vote probably doesn't matter very much. obviously a number of individual votes do add up to something that does matter but it's hard to feel like that's realistic when you live in kansas or california or wherever.
the problem with not voting as a political strategy is how do you make it known that you are withholding your vote because of a specific political reason and not just apathy/inability? sorry if this has already been addressed, there are a lot of posts on here

this so called incredibly important act

I understand the use of this rhetoric, but we aren't math illiterates here. We are aware the chances that casting our single vote may be the decisive one aren't worth noticing, except in certain local elections where the number of votes cast is relatively small.

In the context of US national elections, where the electorate is vast and our constitution has placed multiple arcane and complex hedges around the popular vote, the importance of one vote is so variable that it's usually reduced to such infinitesimal size it could be said to vanish entirely -- except as a member of a large voting bloc, as noted many times already. This applies even in so-called swing states, with the difference being that in swing states the size of the bloc required to be decisive is much smaller.

The reason the US evolved into a two-party system almost instantly after 1789 was the immediate recognition within the political class that a two-party structure allowed the creation of the largest possible voting blocs. The reason any one vote is important is that it exists to form the winning bloc of votes.

It hasn't been directly argued here, but sometimes implied, that single votes are so worthless that choosing to vote or not vote makes zero difference, especially in such a corrupt and rigged system, that a rational person wouldn't care about voting one way or another. There is some analogy here to economics, where what is 'cast' isn't a vote, but a monetary unit such as a dollar.

The basic Keynesian insight was that in times of deflation the most rational economic behavior for any one person was to cling to every dollar as long as possible, because in the near future its spending power would increase. But what made rational sense for individuals, when pursued by millions of individuals, only made deflation far worse to the point where money stopped circulating altogether and the monetary system was destroyed.