There was a law a few years back that prevented giving water to people standing in line to vote. Lines in places where your vote matters can take hours. You also do not get time off work so you have to use a personal day or just get paid less that week.
The water law was specifically in Texas, not a federal law.
It’s stupid how difficult some places make it to vote. Also, in a surprise turn off events, the military was specifically ordered to make sure everyone gets a “down day” to vote.
Probably because of the amount of stupid people in the military that will vote red. I hope it flips this year though.
A problem is that, actually, some are. It’s the carrot on a stick problem allowing the problem to get much, much worse, at a rapid rate.
Like, the big stone door at the end of the tunnel is open, but closing, and there are only 10 people-spaces available. So, 1000 people fight each other to survive, rather than rushing through the door and ripping the spine out of the person closing the door.
“Oh, you have an issue with the door closing person? Maybe if you ran faster and beat more other people you wouldn’t have an issue with it.”
Just so people know because this is important, many states have laws requiring employers to allow time off to vote. Check your local laws. Some states even require that time to be paid.
I’m not USian, but here are some assorted reasons why one might choose not to vote. I do not necessarily agree (or disagree) with any of them, and this is my attempt at a reasonably balanced analysis as a person who is not an expert in politics, but has read a lot of arguments in the comments.
Voting makes you complicit.
(Let’s say for the sake of argument that it is a given that Democrats will continue aiding Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing just as much as the Republicans, but will improve things for marginalised communities domestically.)
The argument here is that voting for a politician that will perpetuate a genocide makes you complicit in a genocide in a way that inaction does not. The counter-argument is that refusing to exercise what influence you have in the choice between make a choice between Palestinian genocide or Palestinian genocide and trans genocide makes you complicit in trans genocide. This is literally the kind of thing that the trolley problem thought experiment was made to explore.
Voting for the lesser evil increases harm in the long run.
The argument here is that demonstrating a willingness to vote for the lesser evil - with no red lines whatsoever - incentivises Democrats to only ever be slightly less bad than the Republicans, whereas having red lines and allowing Democrats who cross them to lose will incentivise the Democratic party to change their policies. The counter-argument is that Dems haven’t exactly demonstrated that they willing to adopt certain policies even when it would be demonstrably beneficial to their election prospects, and so the pragmatic thing to do is to delay harm for as long as possible to give a better chance that non-electoral politics will shift in the interim. The counter-counter-argument is that such a shift will not occur while that harm is being delayed, which leads us on to…
Accelerationism.
(Yes, I’m aware that what I’m about to write isn’t the original meaning of accelerationism. Don’t @ me.)
The argument here is electoral politics either can never progress toward socialism/anarchism/your-flavour-of-leftism (if you’re a leftist), or even that it is no longer even capable of halting a descent into fascism (if you’re a pessimistic liberal), and so we should simply allow shit to get fucked so that a critical mass of people have it bad enough to do some revolution and/or non-voting-based direct action about it. The counter-arguments here include, but are not limited to: a) well, that’s just like, you’re opinion, man; b) that’s an awfully big gamble to take when there’s no guarantee that what will come after will be better; and c) you should prioritise the lives of people that currently exist, now, rather than those of hypothetical future people, and immediate harm reduction is of more benefit to those people specifically.
In case any one cares, I’m English. My position on voting is that I may vote in an election where the Greens or possibly the Lib Dems stand a chance of winning, but otherwise I spoil my ballot. Yes, I’m aware that the Lib Dems are shitlibs. Still better than Labour. I will never vote Labour for as long as it remains transphobic or as long as the likes of Luke Akehurst remain in the party.
The counter-counter-argument is that such a shift will not occur while that harm is being delayed, which leads us on to…
Accelerationism.
I agree with what you said, up until this point. Non-electoral strategies are not harmed by voting because of accelerationist reasons, but because the messaging becomes muddled.
We have these two horrible, awful parties no one really likes, politics is increasingly driven by “negative partisanship,” just a question of which party you hate more, and then everyone on the other side is assumed to be fully on board with the worst aspects of their side, when in reality almost everyone is following this same “lesser evil” logic, and it’s really just a question of which party’s faults they’re more aware and conscious of. One of the biggest advantages to non-electoral strategies is that you have the opportunity to distance yourself from that and define what you actually stand for and don’t stand for yourself. Someone who (correctly) sees someone like Joe Biden as a slimeball, could be more receptive to leftist ideas if they’re decoupled from him.
Now, you take a protest, a union, whatever, and it takes an official stance endorsing a politician, now you’re gonna be defined by that politicians words and actions, and unless it’s someone you can really trust and stand by, you’re right back to square one.
Point is, accelerationism is stupid and doesn’t work, and I can’t say that no one believes it, but I certainly don’t (although people often assume that it’s what I believe despite everything I say to the contrary). We can look at history and see very long periods of time when things were horrible for a lot of people and they weren’t able to change things just by really really wanting them to, because they lacked power and organization. It can also just lead to the left straight up getting exterminated, as has happened many times in history, like Nazi Germany, or Iran under the Shah, or the mass killings in Indonesia under Suharto. Sometimes, the bad guys just win.
Imo, anyone who actually believes in accelerationism is a fool who doesn’t read theory or study history, but it mostly just exists as an insult or accusation, rather than being something people actually believe.
This is literally the kind of thing that the trolley problem thought experiment was made to explore
no, it’s not. the trolley problem is a series of questions that help you to explore your own morality and understand your tendency (consequentialism or deontology or divine command theory, etc) and how far you’re willing to stick to your beliefs.
there are no correct answers to the trolley problem.
A runaway trolley is on course to kill five people, but if you pull a lever it will be diverted to a track where it will kill only one person. Should you pull the lever? Does that make you a murderer?
You: There is no correct answer to this.
A politician who will commit multiple genocides is fighting an election against a politician who will commit one genocide. Should you vote for latter politician? Does that make you complicit in genocide?
You: This is obviously completely different from a trolley problem, and consequentialist and deontological ethics are not relevant in this situation.
there is no correct answer. it depends on which ethical system you prefer. and in fact, the same reasoning someone would use to make their choice in the trolley problem is, hopefully, the same method they’d use in politics. and, to that end, deontologists never pull the lever.
there is no correct answer. it depends on which ethical system you prefer. and in fact, the same reasoning someone would use to make their choice in the trolley problem is, hopefully, the same method they’d use in politics.
Literally the point that I was making in my original comment.
voting for genocide is wrong
If you’re a deontologist. Whereas a consequentialist would argue that allowing more genocide to occur when you could have voted for less genocide is wrong. And, as we’ve established, neither position is objectively the correct one. It depends on you as a person. And let’s not even get into virtue ethics.
great. it seems like you understand that the trolley analogy doesn’t have a single answer
and if you are attacking deontology, you are going to need to overcome all the justifications that deontologists (who make up a plurality of professional philosophers) would proffer.
so you can decide if the right thing for yourself to do is to vote for small genocide or to vote “against big genocide” (ifthe option offered is voting for small genocide) but you can’t decide for others.
I’m not attacking deontology. Or consequentialism.
I’m a bit confused as to why we’re arguing when you haven’t actually said anything I disagree with since your first response, so I am going to guess that what has happened here is that because I formatted my original comment as “here is the argument for why voting is bad”, “here is the counter-argument for why it isn’t”, it comes across as me thinking that the counter-argument is a refutation. That’s not my position. I was not trying to state a position. I was merely trying to put forward my analysis of why there is debate by offering the arguments I commonly see both for and against, and I put the “against voting” arguments first because that most directly answers the question I was responding to.
I think we both agree that there is no correct answer to the trolley problem beyond what is correct to you personally, and I think we both agree that there is no correct answer as to whether you should vote beyond what is correct to you personally. That is why I think the trolley problem is relevant.
FWIW I think that my “I will not vote for Labour” stance demonstrates that I at least lean more toward the deontological position (in this case, at least), but in truth I couldn’t honestly tell you that I’ve come to a firm moral decision. If the Tories and Reform have some fresh new lunatics in charge come the next election I may well be scared enough to change my mind.
Several reasons -
People are lazy AF, maybe a bit “soft disenfranchised” in terms of not preceiving that they have credible information, and also there are active demoralization campaigns going on.
All those are reasons but none are valid excuses. Get off your ass and vote. Many places allow you to vote early. Federal law requires your employer to give you time off to vote.
Does voting cause Americans some obscure form of pain or anguish?
I can see no other reason why not to vote.
There was a law a few years back that prevented giving water to people standing in line to vote. Lines in places where your vote matters can take hours. You also do not get time off work so you have to use a personal day or just get paid less that week.
The water law was specifically in Texas, not a federal law.
It’s stupid how difficult some places make it to vote. Also, in a surprise turn off events, the military was specifically ordered to make sure everyone gets a “down day” to vote.
Probably because of the amount of stupid people in the military that will vote red. I hope it flips this year though.
Americans aren’t really allowed to take off work.
A problem is that, actually, some are. It’s the carrot on a stick problem allowing the problem to get much, much worse, at a rapid rate.
Like, the big stone door at the end of the tunnel is open, but closing, and there are only 10 people-spaces available. So, 1000 people fight each other to survive, rather than rushing through the door and ripping the spine out of the person closing the door.
“Oh, you have an issue with the door closing person? Maybe if you ran faster and beat more other people you wouldn’t have an issue with it.”
Just so people know because this is important, many states have laws requiring employers to allow time off to vote. Check your local laws. Some states even require that time to be paid.
Does anybody require the employee to prove they actually voted?
A lot of us have been disenfranchised yet the rest of the world keeps parroting the oligarch shit about pulling ourselves up by the boot straps.
I’m not USian, but here are some assorted reasons why one might choose not to vote. I do not necessarily agree (or disagree) with any of them, and this is my attempt at a reasonably balanced analysis as a person who is not an expert in politics, but has read a lot of arguments in the comments.
Voting makes you complicit.
(Let’s say for the sake of argument that it is a given that Democrats will continue aiding Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing just as much as the Republicans, but will improve things for marginalised communities domestically.)
The argument here is that voting for a politician that will perpetuate a genocide makes you complicit in a genocide in a way that inaction does not. The counter-argument is that refusing to exercise what influence you have in the choice between make a choice between Palestinian genocide or Palestinian genocide and trans genocide makes you complicit in trans genocide. This is literally the kind of thing that the trolley problem thought experiment was made to explore.
Voting for the lesser evil increases harm in the long run.
The argument here is that demonstrating a willingness to vote for the lesser evil - with no red lines whatsoever - incentivises Democrats to only ever be slightly less bad than the Republicans, whereas having red lines and allowing Democrats who cross them to lose will incentivise the Democratic party to change their policies. The counter-argument is that Dems haven’t exactly demonstrated that they willing to adopt certain policies even when it would be demonstrably beneficial to their election prospects, and so the pragmatic thing to do is to delay harm for as long as possible to give a better chance that non-electoral politics will shift in the interim. The counter-counter-argument is that such a shift will not occur while that harm is being delayed, which leads us on to…
Accelerationism.
(Yes, I’m aware that what I’m about to write isn’t the original meaning of accelerationism. Don’t @ me.)
The argument here is electoral politics either can never progress toward socialism/anarchism/your-flavour-of-leftism (if you’re a leftist), or even that it is no longer even capable of halting a descent into fascism (if you’re a pessimistic liberal), and so we should simply allow shit to get fucked so that a critical mass of people have it bad enough to do some revolution and/or non-voting-based direct action about it. The counter-arguments here include, but are not limited to: a) well, that’s just like, you’re opinion, man; b) that’s an awfully big gamble to take when there’s no guarantee that what will come after will be better; and c) you should prioritise the lives of people that currently exist, now, rather than those of hypothetical future people, and immediate harm reduction is of more benefit to those people specifically.
In case any one cares, I’m English. My position on voting is that I may vote in an election where the Greens or possibly the Lib Dems stand a chance of winning, but otherwise I spoil my ballot. Yes, I’m aware that the Lib Dems are shitlibs. Still better than Labour. I will never vote Labour for as long as it remains transphobic or as long as the likes of Luke Akehurst remain in the party.
I agree with what you said, up until this point. Non-electoral strategies are not harmed by voting because of accelerationist reasons, but because the messaging becomes muddled.
We have these two horrible, awful parties no one really likes, politics is increasingly driven by “negative partisanship,” just a question of which party you hate more, and then everyone on the other side is assumed to be fully on board with the worst aspects of their side, when in reality almost everyone is following this same “lesser evil” logic, and it’s really just a question of which party’s faults they’re more aware and conscious of. One of the biggest advantages to non-electoral strategies is that you have the opportunity to distance yourself from that and define what you actually stand for and don’t stand for yourself. Someone who (correctly) sees someone like Joe Biden as a slimeball, could be more receptive to leftist ideas if they’re decoupled from him.
Now, you take a protest, a union, whatever, and it takes an official stance endorsing a politician, now you’re gonna be defined by that politicians words and actions, and unless it’s someone you can really trust and stand by, you’re right back to square one.
Point is, accelerationism is stupid and doesn’t work, and I can’t say that no one believes it, but I certainly don’t (although people often assume that it’s what I believe despite everything I say to the contrary). We can look at history and see very long periods of time when things were horrible for a lot of people and they weren’t able to change things just by really really wanting them to, because they lacked power and organization. It can also just lead to the left straight up getting exterminated, as has happened many times in history, like Nazi Germany, or Iran under the Shah, or the mass killings in Indonesia under Suharto. Sometimes, the bad guys just win.
Imo, anyone who actually believes in accelerationism is a fool who doesn’t read theory or study history, but it mostly just exists as an insult or accusation, rather than being something people actually believe.
no, it’s not. the trolley problem is a series of questions that help you to explore your own morality and understand your tendency (consequentialism or deontology or divine command theory, etc) and how far you’re willing to stick to your beliefs.
there are no correct answers to the trolley problem.
A runaway trolley is on course to kill five people, but if you pull a lever it will be diverted to a track where it will kill only one person. Should you pull the lever? Does that make you a murderer?
You: There is no correct answer to this.
A politician who will commit multiple genocides is fighting an election against a politician who will commit one genocide. Should you vote for latter politician? Does that make you complicit in genocide?
You: This is obviously completely different from a trolley problem, and consequentialist and deontological ethics are not relevant in this situation.
there is no correct answer. it depends on which ethical system you prefer. and in fact, the same reasoning someone would use to make their choice in the trolley problem is, hopefully, the same method they’d use in politics. and, to that end, deontologists never pull the lever.
voting for genocide is wrong
Literally the point that I was making in my original comment.
If you’re a deontologist. Whereas a consequentialist would argue that allowing more genocide to occur when you could have voted for less genocide is wrong. And, as we’ve established, neither position is objectively the correct one. It depends on you as a person. And let’s not even get into virtue ethics.
great. it seems like you understand that the trolley analogy doesn’t have a single answer
and if you are attacking deontology, you are going to need to overcome all the justifications that deontologists (who make up a plurality of professional philosophers) would proffer.
so you can decide if the right thing for yourself to do is to vote for small genocide or to vote “against big genocide” (ifthe option offered is voting for small genocide) but you can’t decide for others.
I’m not attacking deontology. Or consequentialism.
I’m a bit confused as to why we’re arguing when you haven’t actually said anything I disagree with since your first response, so I am going to guess that what has happened here is that because I formatted my original comment as “here is the argument for why voting is bad”, “here is the counter-argument for why it isn’t”, it comes across as me thinking that the counter-argument is a refutation. That’s not my position. I was not trying to state a position. I was merely trying to put forward my analysis of why there is debate by offering the arguments I commonly see both for and against, and I put the “against voting” arguments first because that most directly answers the question I was responding to.
I think we both agree that there is no correct answer to the trolley problem beyond what is correct to you personally, and I think we both agree that there is no correct answer as to whether you should vote beyond what is correct to you personally. That is why I think the trolley problem is relevant.
FWIW I think that my “I will not vote for Labour” stance demonstrates that I at least lean more toward the deontological position (in this case, at least), but in truth I couldn’t honestly tell you that I’ve come to a firm moral decision. If the Tories and Reform have some fresh new lunatics in charge come the next election I may well be scared enough to change my mind.
This is a spot-on analysis, especially for someone not in the US.
Several reasons - People are lazy AF, maybe a bit “soft disenfranchised” in terms of not preceiving that they have credible information, and also there are active demoralization campaigns going on.
All those are reasons but none are valid excuses. Get off your ass and vote. Many places allow you to vote early. Federal law requires your employer to give you time off to vote.
No excuses… inform yourself and vote.