Poll: Is not voting ever a good political strategy?

"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.

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

You have to follow the uncommitted strategy and organize - finite goals and an organization that can bargain (or at least make the terms known). It's what the DSA should have done instead of spinning its wheels with Congressional entryism since 2016 - you've got more power over a Congressperon if you can withhold enough votes to tank them than you do with an endorsement.

But also it has to be a real threat - the Democrats are happy to play chicken with the uncommitteds this year, counting on them to buckle and vote for the lesser evil. Only by maintaining discipline in the face of people screaming at you to vote for the genocide enablers can you even hope to have some impact.

"I understand the use of this rhetoric, but we aren't math illiterates here."

Sounds like some of you have harsh words for the illiterates, right?

Nice try. My wife learned to hate math because it was used as a punishment by one of her grade school teachers. Somehow other I manage to love her better than anyone else in the world.

It's what the DSA should have done instead of spinning its wheels with Congressional entryism since 2016 - you've got more power over a Congressperon if you can withhold enough votes to tank them than you do with an endorsement.

I think this is a pretty decent plan if you have the numbers to move the needle (though in tight run races that number may be relatively low). I think where Uncommitted differed to an extent is that it telegraphed as a movement of voters rather than a movement of non-voters - who can't necessarily be relied on to turnout if the leverage is met

ie reliable voters threatening to withhold votes carries more weight than less reliable voters, who it might be perceived wouldn't necessarily turn out

hence the administration's alarm

I apologize for the length of this response, but this topic fascinates me - if you like campaign jargon, you'll love it. If not, you probably won't, but here goes:

One flaw of not voting is how it limits your impact on candidate’s platforms. People running for local offices, who have smaller budgets with limited volunteer and/or paid canvassing operations, can only make contact efforts for a finite number of voters. To maximize the efficiency of these outreach efforts, we have to build our universe of possible contacts around all Dems/Indies/lefty minor party voters who always vote, or “4 of 4s” (as in, they voted in the last 2 primary elections and 2 general elections). If we have capacity to expand the list, then we add 2 of last 2 GEs and 1 of last 2 PEs (3 of 4s); with next being those who voted in the last single PE and GE (2 of 2s), then we add recent registrants. Only if we have additional capacity do we then add people who skipped the last general election.

Since smaller campaigns use these door-to-door and phone contacts not only as a means of winning over voters, but as a ‘poll’ to get info on which issues are most important to the electorate, those who are not contacted essentially miss out on impacting the issue positions and stances of the candidates. If you are wondering “Come on, doesn’t every candidate know which issues are important to their targeted voters?”, you would be quite surprised at just how many items are brought up by the voters. For local races with very specific items relevant to that part of a city (for example, in south Minneapolis, the use of a site called the Roof Depot as an incubator for local BIPOC-owned small businesses or as an urban farm), skipping elections means that we don’t hear your perspective on the issue because we aren’t calling you or knocking on your door – instead we are going to those who regularly vote, because, once again, we have limited resources in how many voters we can contact.

Among all voters on the moderate-to-socialist continuum, my research has found that those who intentionally choose to sit out elections are more left-wing than the median voter, meaning that the voters that have ‘taken’ their spot in the canvassing lists are likely to support more centrist policy proposals than the non-voters. The candidates miss out on that perspective, or get misled into thinking that the left-wing viewpoint is less popular than it actually is.

While I ask people to not skip elections, if you were ever going to do so, at least cast a vote for one office on the ballot, so you still get included in the ‘regularly votes’ lists, rather than skipped.

Again, I think posters in this thread refer to presidential elections and sitting them out, not local races.

trying to think of how many elections in my adult life were framed as "the most important election of your lifetime"

I don't recall Bush-Gore being touted that way, which is probably why I felt comfortable voting Nader then. I think also people thought Gore would defeat Bush (well, more than he actually did at least).

Iraq war definitely turned 2004 into a "blue no matter who" thing, because Kerry was dogshit, but he underperformed expectations so that messaging didn't work.

Obama didn't feel that way simply because after the disastrous Bush term and how poorly he was viewed by even his own voters coupled with Great Recession, the potential to win was high before a candidate was nominated, and McCain's poor campaign and Palin sunk him fairly early, so they actually ran on 'hope' rather than fear.

but by 2012, we were back to "blue no matter who, we can't have Romney gut ACA".

2016, I can't recall if that was the messaging prior to Trump emerging as the obvious candidate, but it sure as fuck got louder when it was obvious he'd get it.

people get very sick of that messaging and the smug nature of it, even though deep down we all know we do have to keep the white supremacist rapist autocrat out of office.

hard to know how well he'd have done in a general, but the coalescence behind Biden in 2020 was premature, especially since it felt like it could have been anotehr 2008, where Trump's unforced errors really had voters hoping to see him in the rear view. but Dems (and Obama) got cold feet and decided to congeal around the 'only one who could win'.

Kamala at least has come out of the gate with things to be excited about even it's mostly vibes at this point, but Democrats really aren't going to get that much more mileage out of scaring people into voting for them, particularly when not using 80% of the toolkit available regarding SCOTUS and court expansion (yeah it might face more roadblocks i.e. Manchin but not even making the effort to even give lip service to this until the end of your second time...ugh)

xpost otm i don't think anybody here needs to be told about downticket races/ballot initiatives

If anything Harris' success (till now) has depended on (a) youth (b) Dem voter exhaustion with WHOA NELLY THE SKY'S FALLING

what's weird was the reasoning for that messaging pre-Trump. obviously in 2004 it made sense, Iraqis and US soldiers were dying en masse, fighting two wars, Patriot Act etc.

in 2012, I get people were afraid of the Affordable Care Act being repealed, which was fair, but they also tried to suggest that other gains that SCOTUS had given would go away, which of course was impossible without someone on the bench dying/retiring.

I think posters in this thread refer to presidential elections and sitting them out, not local races.

This may be true, but it was not my intention that this discussion be limited to presidential elections, and certainly not the just Trump vs Harris. But people tend to apply their own perspective to their contributions regardless.

in 2012, I get people were afraid of the Affordable Care Act being repealed, which was fair, but they also tried to suggest that other gains that SCOTUS had given would go away, which of course was impossible without someone on the bench dying/retiring.

Maybe this is belaboring the obvious but multiple people died/retired in the intervening years and now Roe vs Wade has been thrown out, so I don’t think the messaging was a) wrong, or b) premature

well, all that happened after 2016 then (other than Scalia). but I understand your point.

then = though

I guess what I want to understand (truly- I am keeping an open mind here) from the people itt who are not Republican voters but are committed to not voting for Harris at this point due to what is happening in Gaza:

- How are you making your stance known (other than posting here) and what group are you joining that has the goal and ability to bargain with her campaign for your votes?
- What verbal commitment from Harris would you be satisfied with, given that a verbal commitment is all that can happen until she is actually President?

I'm not sure why the inclination would be to amplify your position in the public sphere without making these two things clear at every opportunity. There is the potential here to impact countless others' intentions regarding voting, without bringing them into the bargaining position I can only presume you intend.

all that happened after 2016 then

But also after the 2014 midterms, which had historically terrible turnout and flipped nine Senate seats to Republicans.

There is also the fact that Democrats have been backed into a corner where we need to hold the Presidency, hold the Senate, and win the House, if we want to have any hope of making change. Republicans have shown that they will not cooperate, and will not give Democrats "wins", if they hold any of the levers of power. Minimally, not holding the Presidency and the Senate means we are doomed with regard to the Supreme Court (more than we already are).

- How are you making your stance known (other than posting here) and what group are you joining that has the goal and ability to bargain with her campaign for your votes?
- What verbal commitment from Harris would you be satisfied with, given that a verbal commitment is all that can happen until she is actually President?

I'm not sure why the inclination would be to amplify your position in the public sphere without making these two things clear at every opportunity. There is the potential here to impact countless others' intentions regarding voting, without bringing them into the bargaining position I can only presume you intend.

lol this is disgusting. yes it's on the non genocide agreers to justify all their choices. especially since other people, who are apparently babies, might hear.

this thread is fucking pathetic and full of a lot of people who think they're smart but are actually dumb as shit, poster aimless chief among them. i will be voting for harris in november and honestly gaza isn't a huge issue for me because i've seen so many us backed genocides in my lifetime, it sucks but i see a genocide of poor and mentally ill people in my own backyard every day and the chance to address that is my primary motivation for voting.

people can choose to not participate politically and be perfectly valid morally upright beings. the assumption of a zero sum game in this kind of thread question is stupid horseshit. the worst thread of the year from one of our worst posters.

I'm not asking anyone to justify anything, voting or not voting is a personal choice. But given the amount of "oh, so you support genocide?" bullshit I see thrown around here, I just assumed the posters with the higher moral ground had some sort of plan and I wanted to know what it was.

It definitely feels like the posters who plan to vote are being forced to justify themselves, and I find that disgusting.

Particularly in light of what some of our ancestors went through to make voting a routine task for some of us.

I’m with DJP — that’s what my parents taught me about voting, that it’s something people fought hard and even died for and i ought not squander if I want to sleep at night. The privilege of withholding my vote never seemed more important than that, to me at least.

^^^
I’m finding it difficult to put into words how awful it is to see liberal guys sidelining reproductive rights and failing to consider the POV of people from groups who haven’t always enjoyed the right to vote, just to have this VeRy iNteLLeCtUaL DiScUsSiOn.

absolutely no one is being told to not vote, that voting is bad or that their reasons for voting are invalid/bad/etc.

zero posters in the history of ILX have been "forced to justify themselves" for voting for a Democrat

Very slightly upthread, comment about "non genocide agreers"- the implication is clear. And that's just the most recent example.

Yeah I think the moral pressures implied or otherwise are expressed in both directions.

I think that's fine fwiw, would be nice if people could accept that there are moral arguments either way. I'm not persuaded by the vote-withholding position for lots of reasons, but I don't think it's crazy, I understand the objections. I don't think any of think we're presented with ideal options, in this or any other election.

any of us think ...

I think that's fair to say.

Very slightly upthread, comment about "non genocide agreers"- the implication is clear. And that's just the most recent example.

The comment about non-genocide agreers... from a declared Harris voter in response to you actually making demands of non-voters or people who want to take Harris to task over Israel.

Per your equivocation upthread about where Harris stands, you don't want to be on Team Genocide. Cool, good desire to have. Pretty much bullshit, because she's going to enable genocide in office. Other concerns outweigh the obvious reality of what President Harris would mean on Israel (and American imperialism in general), completely understandable.

No one is requiring you to justify how you weigh those concerns but at the same time no one is responsible for helping to make you feel better about that vote by pretending Harris isn't going to be a continuation of foreign policy as it exists.

zero posters in the history of ILX have been "forced to justify themselves" for voting for a Democrat

lol this is rich

xp I don't care who made the comment, it's part of a pattern of how we are talking about these issues and it is making people feel compelled to justify their voting intentions, in the face of accusations of being complicit in genocide. It's been like Godwin's law here.

there is a single declared November American non-voter at ILX and he's not even taking part ITT, we haven't had a Republican voter since Roger Adultery disappeared (if he's ever even voted) and the only libertarian we've had is very much a liberal now

99% of American ILXors have voted Democratic for the two decades of its existence, Democratic voters are not a persecuted group around these parts

Whole lotta hit dogs hollerin’…

anyway I didn't make any demands, I just asked how people are planning to "take Harris to task". Because posting here won't do it.

this thread is fucking pathetic and full of a lot of people who think they're smart but are actually dumb as shit, poster aimless chief among them.

Every few months someone on ILX is a victim of your splenetic rants and it gets less charming every time, and you should shut the fuck up and apologize to Aimless who didn't personally insult you or anyone on this thread. Fucking hell, man.

If you've got anger problems, map, step off fucking ILX. I've had enough spit-flecked rage from straight guys to deal with it here.

I can share that, of the many reasons I have for voting for Harris, #1 on my list is that I have a daughter, and I want her to grow up in a country where she is valued, empowered, and in control of her own destiny (inasmuch as any of us are). I want her to grow up in a country that would elect Harris as President. I don't want her to grow up in a country that would elect Trump again. And I don't want her to grow up in the hellscape that our country would become under a second Trump administration. Things are bad enough already.