Welp, that’s the dumbest idea I’ve heard this week.
16 Likes
The only party that wants more people to vote and have higher turnout are the parties that lost the election. If things are going well for those in power why would they want change? Not voting as a result only encourages the status quo.
Abstaining in sufficient numbers to deny any party a mandate to govern, forcing this awful generation of politicians to reconsider not only their values and policies but also their public conduct is a dream that’s going to be very hard to realise.
3 Likes
I’ve heard people convincingly describe the idea of not voting in a system that barely benefits them but I’m not sure if it actually translates to anything in practice.
Oh jalfrezi’s post is good.
A better alternative is somehow forcing the “None of the above” option onto ballot papers (perhaps by referendum).
There’s plenty of examples. First hit google gives me was a failure…
The second a relative success…
1 Like
I’m sure that Trump, as a man of honor, would resign in shame if no one would go to the election.
1 Like
Pulling stats from this article:
“The Census Bureau estimated that there were 245.5 million Americans ages 18 and older in November 2016, about 157.6 million of whom reported being registered to vote. (While political scientists typically define turnout as votes cast divided by the number of eligible voters, in practice turnout calculations usually are based on the estimated voting-age population, or VAP.) Just over 137.5 million people told the census they voted in 2016, somewhat higher than the actual number of votes tallied – nearly 136.8 million”
If we consider those people who are not voting in elections to be effectively engaged in “Political Abstentionism”, then ~40% of American voters are already doing so.
How much higher would that number need to be in order for the process to be considered illegitimate?
Say if 90% of eligible voters did not vote, it would seem obvious to be me that the politicians elected would have a very tenuous if not entirely specious claim to legitimacy.
If 51%+ of eligible voters did not participate, what would the argument be that the process is legitimate and that the people that won the elections have a mandate from the citizenry?
1 Like
From a NATO country six months ago…
Presidential election boycott
On 30 April 2020, four former Polish presidents and nine prime ministers called for a boycott of 2020 presidential election
Election day change
On 6 May… an agreement to move the election.
1 Like
I used to actually be in favor of this. By participating in a broken and corrupt system, you are allowing it to perpetually oppress and exploit the middle and lower class.
Problem is that I have no idea what to do with that information. Sure, not voting may offer some moral high ground in the abstract but votes are going to be counted regardless of one’s principled stand.
This is all turned inside out, of course. Not doing something never offers any “moral high ground”.
Now, some may assert that doing something, in this case voting, does in fact offer some moral high ground. But… that would just be a hypothetical and unsupported assertion at this point of the thread.
Well sure, the senatorial donkeys experienced this phenomenon just this week. So, why did they pull their vote boycott stunt?
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Wednesday. “We will not grant this process any further legitimacy by participating in a committee markup of this nomination just 12 days before the culmination of an election that is already underway,”
Notice that the donkeys are not claiming any sort of “principled stand”… that’s not hardly their thing, and that’s really not what this is all about in general. If we assume the donkeys actually have a strategy… it must be something else entirely.
One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. So yes choosing not to do something can offer moral high ground.
If I feel that a system is unjust then I should not participate in it as not doing so is a means of protest against it.
It’s exactly why Quakers don’t vote. They feel that participation in systems not based on their religious principles is immoral.
1 Like
That’s an excellent point. I stand corrected in general.
At least they don’t close the bars on election day anymore. Of course, they’re closed as far as I’m concerned during the Pandemic.
Honest to goodness
The bars weren’t open this morning
They must have been voting for a new president of something
Do you have a quarter?
I said, “Yes”, because I did
Honest to goodness, the tears have been falling
All over this country’s face
OK VG. I assume you would like peeps to respect you for playing follow the leader. I gotta coupla follow up Qs…
-
Would you equally respect our hypothetical Quaker, who doesn’t care to play follow that leader?
-
What if you were a senatorial donkey. Would you follow, checks notes, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s lead regarding the vote mentioned above?
I’m ambivalent about respect from peeps about following the leader.
I’m ambivalent about Quakers not voting. If choose not to decide you still have made a choice. I think they should set aside their childish beliefs, but it’s a free country, whatever.
I think the third point is off-topic.
How do you figure? The senatorial donkeys staged a vote boycott stunt. How is that not relevant in a thread about boycotting votes?
If this is a troll, please expunge post haste. My 13 year old was complaining the other day that all my wife and I do is talk politics and he is sick of it. I explained that our nation is at the brink, Trump is awful etc. He comes back with the statement that he plans not to vote when he 18. So I come back over the top with you would be enabling facism, racism and other evil isms. He 4 bets me with, "Dad, if everybody just doesn’t vote, then we’ll have anarchy, and that would be better then Trump. Check and mate? I’m raising an anarchist and I’m ok with that.
10 Likes
2 Likes