You are confusing cause and effect. We have voter apathy because we are where we are. The vote-harder contingent has never once shown that it works. Every single president has presided over mass murder of innocent civilians. Every single party has approved or failed to stop mass murder. There has not been a single victory over racialized mass incarceration in 70 years. The US imprisons more of its people than almost any other country, and has a parole system twice as big as its prison system, meaning it manages the lives 3x more people with its police force than any other country on earth. It’s unfathomably larger than anything the world has ever seen. It absolutely dwarfs the height of the GULAG system.
The system creates the apathy. The apathy doesn’t create the system.
And I saw your other comment that not-voting won’t make things better and that’s true, but voting also won’t make things better. So it’s time to start thinking about what will make things better and time to stop funneling energy into a known ineffective solution.
We have that voter apathy because our voting system is awful, and doesn’t allow most votes to even matter. People should still vote, but that alone isn’t enough to fix anything. As things are now it’s damage control at best.
It’s bad, especially in the US and Canada, but not voting isn’t going to fix anything. Ultimately there are not hard-coded rules saying a progressive vote is worth less than a conservative one, even if the systems are set up to look that way. Voting is always worth it.
Ultimately there are not hard-coded rules saying a progressive vote is worth less than a conservative one
There might not be rules explicitly for this purpose, but the Electoral College and Senate are hard-coded institutions in the US government that effectively guarantee this. The antagonism there is more framed as a rural vs urban one, but it effectively amounts to the same thing in practice. Going by Wikipedia numbers, every elector for NY represents the votes of up to 714,372 residents of New York, while in Wyoming, that ration is considerably lower, at 1 elector for every 196,251 residents. This ignores things like residents counted in the population who are ineligible to vote and people who just don’t, but you get the point. Ditto for the Senate, where some 10 million New Yorkers get the same representation as just under 300,000 people in Wyoming.
Yes, rural states could eventually swing left again and make this no longer the case, but it certainly seems unlikely at any time in the near future.
Problem is in a lot of places those with the D next to their name aren’t progressive with the only ones that actually are being third party. So not only do you have to convince a non-voter to vote, but you have to convince them to support someone that’s not part of the 2 major parties.
Even in primaries there’s just not an option. In my area everyone just tries to get right wing votes, including the Dems with many straight up just calling themselves conservatives that don’t agree with the direction that party took. I’ve yet to see anyone every running to represent the party even on a small scale advocating for leftist values.
Maybe but not enough. Given gerrymandering and swing states. Do I wish my states politicians were progressive? Of course and I’ll keep voting for them. But when it comes to national politics, my states politicians are blue and that won’t change either way, and it will not be paid attention to because we’re not a swing state
As long as my state is balanced by another I can’t affect, nothing is changing. No matter how progressive we may be, there’s always a West Virginia voting against healthcare, education, technology, jobs, the environment, livable wages, more protective safety nets, etc
Then vote in all elections including local, special, midterms and especially primaries not just general. Choose progressives.
We are where we are, because voter apathy. When you don’t vote, other pick the candidates for you.
You are confusing cause and effect. We have voter apathy because we are where we are. The vote-harder contingent has never once shown that it works. Every single president has presided over mass murder of innocent civilians. Every single party has approved or failed to stop mass murder. There has not been a single victory over racialized mass incarceration in 70 years. The US imprisons more of its people than almost any other country, and has a parole system twice as big as its prison system, meaning it manages the lives 3x more people with its police force than any other country on earth. It’s unfathomably larger than anything the world has ever seen. It absolutely dwarfs the height of the GULAG system.
The system creates the apathy. The apathy doesn’t create the system.
And I saw your other comment that not-voting won’t make things better and that’s true, but voting also won’t make things better. So it’s time to start thinking about what will make things better and time to stop funneling energy into a known ineffective solution.
Exactly. Vote Green.
Wait is that Kang or Kronos
We have that voter apathy because our voting system is awful, and doesn’t allow most votes to even matter. People should still vote, but that alone isn’t enough to fix anything. As things are now it’s damage control at best.
It’s bad, especially in the US and Canada, but not voting isn’t going to fix anything. Ultimately there are not hard-coded rules saying a progressive vote is worth less than a conservative one, even if the systems are set up to look that way. Voting is always worth it.
There might not be rules explicitly for this purpose, but the Electoral College and Senate are hard-coded institutions in the US government that effectively guarantee this. The antagonism there is more framed as a rural vs urban one, but it effectively amounts to the same thing in practice. Going by Wikipedia numbers, every elector for NY represents the votes of up to 714,372 residents of New York, while in Wyoming, that ration is considerably lower, at 1 elector for every 196,251 residents. This ignores things like residents counted in the population who are ineligible to vote and people who just don’t, but you get the point. Ditto for the Senate, where some 10 million New Yorkers get the same representation as just under 300,000 people in Wyoming.
Yes, rural states could eventually swing left again and make this no longer the case, but it certainly seems unlikely at any time in the near future.
Problem is in a lot of places those with the D next to their name aren’t progressive with the only ones that actually are being third party. So not only do you have to convince a non-voter to vote, but you have to convince them to support someone that’s not part of the 2 major parties.
That’s why he called out primaries
Even in primaries there’s just not an option. In my area everyone just tries to get right wing votes, including the Dems with many straight up just calling themselves conservatives that don’t agree with the direction that party took. I’ve yet to see anyone every running to represent the party even on a small scale advocating for leftist values.
Maybe but not enough. Given gerrymandering and swing states. Do I wish my states politicians were progressive? Of course and I’ll keep voting for them. But when it comes to national politics, my states politicians are blue and that won’t change either way, and it will not be paid attention to because we’re not a swing state
As long as my state is balanced by another I can’t affect, nothing is changing. No matter how progressive we may be, there’s always a West Virginia voting against healthcare, education, technology, jobs, the environment, livable wages, more protective safety nets, etc