this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
964 points (84.7% liked)
Political Memes
5612 readers
884 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't understand why people make such a big deal out of these voters. Maybe I'm just consuming the wrong media, but it feels like third-party voters get 50x the blame nonvoters get for ruining elections with probably something like a thousandth of the population. I basically never see this discussion call out both third-party voters and nonvoters equally.
I keep seeing third-party voters maligned for thinking a candidate has hope to win a national election, I see so many arguments to address why third-party candidates can't win. In spite of that, I have never come across any community anywhere where people collectively believe these candidates actually have a chance. People who consume crazy media can believe crazy things, that's why MAGA is a thing, but there's a whole Fox News etc media machine feeding those people. Is there a forum somewhere with more than ten people where there's a consensus that a third-party candidate might actually win? None of the third party voters I have known or met irl believed this, and I would be shocked if they're all weird exceptions.
Like, please, where are these people congregating to spread the ludicrous idea that a third-party candidate can win a national election? Looking on the recent green party posts on their subreddits, the only thing I see even close is a thread with a headline about "candidates are electable if people vote for them", where the furthest they go in the comments is a few people talking about how big a deal it would be for the party if they got 5% nationally, and a couple other people replying to say the greens won't even get 1% this year but the election is still very important because of some nonsense about incremental gains.
It feels like we've imagined a brainwashing machine that does not exist in reality, rather than admit to the existence of protest votes. Condemning protest votes means condemning protest nonvotes equally, and we'll never have sufficient information about protest nonvoters to reasonably make a claim about how they would have voted. That would severely muddy any attempts to assign blame for election results.
If you're trying to convince these voters to act differently, the way to do that would be to address the arguments they're actually making, like the incremental gains nonsense. If you're addressing arguments they haven't been making at all, then it's worth asking whether you're trying to convince someone other than them.
Nonvoters suck too.
It's about sending a message: "I care enoug to vote, but both of you are shit" in the hope that in the next election cycle the candidates are less shit.
Most elections I’m all for third party candidates in the hope that we’ll get one that can make a difference. We have had third parties on the national ballot and we’ve certainly had third parties influence the national debate even without getting a seat.
However the last few elections are different - Trump is so destructive to our democratic institutions, our national identity, any hope of caring for our own people or others. I still don’t see how he is a viable candidate or how any sane person will vote for him. But he is there and it’s a valid point that a third party can be a spoiler. In this case we have a party/candidate who is to the left of the Democrats, pulling enough votes to be a spoiler: your vote to be farther left could very well lead us into a nationalist tyranny, and assuming history repeats abuses of constitutional authority over the law, abuses of multiple scapegoated groups, historical levels of corruption, increased global warming, global chaos. None of us can afford this and while we appreciate your attempt to pull to the left, it could send us over the deep end to the far right
We have seen exactly zero indications that the republicans might start nominating better candidates anytime soon. The next candidate will probably be "Trump, but less incompetent at implementing his agenda". It makes sense to want to stall as long as possible, but needing a democrat victory every single election from here out is not going to be a winning strategy longterm. If Trump winning is guaranteed global chaos, then there aren't votes we can cast that will do anything other than slightly delay that.
Non-voters are idiots but ultimately they will not vote. You can't lead a donkey to water
People who vote third party actively get up in the morning to piss away their votes. It's like leading a donkey to water and they decide to eat sand instead.
You've never heard of a "get out the vote" campaign? I can't imagine thinking that you can't possibly convince someone to vote.
I don't understand what you're trying to suggest here. Taking it at face value doesn't make any sense at all - in spite of massively outnumbering third-party voters, the potential impact of non-voters should be dismissed because they are all somehow incapable of being convinced that voting is worth their time? Casting a ballot is a difficult mental hurdle to clear, so it's reasonable to write off anyone who has not yet shown that they're capable of doing so as a hopeless case?
If the argument is that third party voters are throwing their votes away, why should we consider a protest vote to be different in any meaningful way from a protest non-vote?