In what way does voting for a third party candidate signal apathy? It shows you would like a candidate that is not one of the two main parties. Is that not your intention?
Voting is miniscule, the real part lies elsewhere.
What, do you plan on an armed revolution? Seriously?
In what way does voting for a third party candidate signal apathy? It shows you would like a candidate that is not one of the two main parties.
Yes. So it signals apathy with the current system.
What, do you plan on an armed revolution? Seriously?
Because the only thing to do apart from voting once every two years is to bomb the local town hall… Why is it you assume it is either vote or immediate mass organised proletarian uprising?
That’s not what “apathy” means. I hate to pull out the definition but I think you might actually benefit from it:
“Apathy, also referred to as indifference, is a lack of feeling, emotion, interest, and/or concern about something.” - Wikipedia
Voter apathy means you do not care about the subject of voting. If you are trying to achieve something by voting third party, you are by definition not being apathetic. If you care about changing the current system, as you have demonstrated elsewhere in this thread-- if you feel disgust, anger, or motivation of any kind to end the suffering it causes-- and choose to express that by voting third party, you are not apathetic.
On the other hand, if you choose not to vote, it is usually interpreted as apathy by the political apparatus-- you could have made your desire for the political future known and did not care to do so. Hope that makes sense.
Why is it you assume it is either vote or immediate mass organised proletarian uprising?
Those are usually the two suggestions I hear being discussed. Don’t vaguepost, if you have political suggestions you think would be useful, let’s hear them!
The current political apparatus in the U.S. is one of genocide and capitalism, it has been so since the founding and will not change by voting. It would not respond to my desire, and so I do not have such use of voting. The political future I wish to see can only come by taking power from the current system. It will not happen tomorrow, but nevertheless we should be prepared. And therefore, I, and BanMeFromPosting I assume, suggest organizing. Getting involved with politics day-to-day, building community, support networks, reading to better understand the world, etc.
Voting takes like 0 effort. You can work to supplant the current system AND vote once every few years. What possible downside would there be? It can help the idea of breaking the two-party system gain popular support too, which is symbiotic with the organizing you are suggesting.
Getting involved with politics day-to-day, building community, support networks, reading to better understand the world, etc.
Those are all good things to do. But once you have a group of like-minded supporters who believe in your cause-- then what? You don’t want to vote or protest illegally apparently; economic protest maybe? Community assistance? Those are great, but you’re leaving options on the table and seriously limiting your group’s agency by not voting.
Voting third party will not elect a third party candidate yet, but it will more clearly show your desire for change and has a better chance of meaningfully affecting the behavior of the dominant parties or other voters.
Agreed, but it’s only under fairly specific circumstances that it’s effective (i.e. worth it for the rational voter) in such a system. Post-war Britain managed to delete the Liberal party (or maybe just rename) but they ended up in the same boat after a while. If you can’t respect ranked preferences you end up with two big parties that try to represent a bit more than half the country, with all the nuance that allows.
That’s all true, yes. I just think it’s rational to vote third party if you were planning on not voting at all because it has some positive benefits and no real downsides.
It’s ridiculous that you put voting third party and not voting in the same category. You clearly do not understand the effects of your actions.
No, I do. Not voting and voting third party both work towards eroding the Democratic Party, which is necessary in order for positive change in the us.
Voting third party is incredibly more effective at that because it signals a desire for change rather than just voter apathy
Sure. Not voting for democrats also signals apathy. Voting is miniscule, the real part lies elsewhere.
In what way does voting for a third party candidate signal apathy? It shows you would like a candidate that is not one of the two main parties. Is that not your intention?
What, do you plan on an armed revolution? Seriously?
Yes. So it signals apathy with the current system.
Because the only thing to do apart from voting once every two years is to bomb the local town hall… Why is it you assume it is either vote or immediate mass organised proletarian uprising?
Liberalism. Capitalist realism. Etc., etc. such ideas.
What about them?
That’s not what “apathy” means. I hate to pull out the definition but I think you might actually benefit from it:
Voter apathy means you do not care about the subject of voting. If you are trying to achieve something by voting third party, you are by definition not being apathetic. If you care about changing the current system, as you have demonstrated elsewhere in this thread-- if you feel disgust, anger, or motivation of any kind to end the suffering it causes-- and choose to express that by voting third party, you are not apathetic.
On the other hand, if you choose not to vote, it is usually interpreted as apathy by the political apparatus-- you could have made your desire for the political future known and did not care to do so. Hope that makes sense.
Those are usually the two suggestions I hear being discussed. Don’t vaguepost, if you have political suggestions you think would be useful, let’s hear them!
The current political apparatus in the U.S. is one of genocide and capitalism, it has been so since the founding and will not change by voting. It would not respond to my desire, and so I do not have such use of voting. The political future I wish to see can only come by taking power from the current system. It will not happen tomorrow, but nevertheless we should be prepared. And therefore, I, and BanMeFromPosting I assume, suggest organizing. Getting involved with politics day-to-day, building community, support networks, reading to better understand the world, etc.
Voting takes like 0 effort. You can work to supplant the current system AND vote once every few years. What possible downside would there be? It can help the idea of breaking the two-party system gain popular support too, which is symbiotic with the organizing you are suggesting.
Those are all good things to do. But once you have a group of like-minded supporters who believe in your cause-- then what? You don’t want to vote or protest illegally apparently; economic protest maybe? Community assistance? Those are great, but you’re leaving options on the table and seriously limiting your group’s agency by not voting.
Do you even FPTP?
Voting third party will not elect a third party candidate yet, but it will more clearly show your desire for change and has a better chance of meaningfully affecting the behavior of the dominant parties or other voters.
Agreed, but it’s only under fairly specific circumstances that it’s effective (i.e. worth it for the rational voter) in such a system. Post-war Britain managed to delete the Liberal party (or maybe just rename) but they ended up in the same boat after a while. If you can’t respect ranked preferences you end up with two big parties that try to represent a bit more than half the country, with all the nuance that allows.
That’s all true, yes. I just think it’s rational to vote third party if you were planning on not voting at all because it has some positive benefits and no real downsides.