this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2024
219 points (95.8% liked)

News

23655 readers
3486 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The 2024 US presidential election had been widely characterized as one of the most consequential political contests in recent US history. Although turnout was high for a presidential election – almost matching the levels of 2020 – it is estimated that close to 90 million Americans, roughly 36% of the eligible voting age population, did not vote. This number is greater than the number of people who voted for either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.

More than a month on from polling day, eligible US voters from across the country as well as other parts of the world got in touch with the Guardian to share why they did not vote.

Scores of people said they had not turned out as they felt their vote would not matter because of the electoral college system, since they lived in a safely blue or red state. This included a number of people who nonetheless had voted in the 2020 and 2016 elections.

While various previous Democratic voters said they had abstained this time due to the Harris campaign’s stance on Israel or for other policy reasons, a number of people in this camp said they would have voted for the vice-president had they lived in a swing state.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I’d be the one to argue ….. I mean, fine if you really don’t see the point, but the reasoning on half of these people in the article is flawed. Either they were speaking out of ignorance or using excuses for poor citizenship, but when their reason contradicts reality, they should be argued

And even if you’re in a solid red or blue state (like I am), your vote counts. Maybe it won’t change the results but they do pay attention. At the very least we could always say the Democratic candidate would win the popular vote. Not this time.

If there’s ever going to be a chance at reforming the electoral college system, t starts by having the popular vote be consistently different from the electoral vote. From this election, there’s no reason for reform, because both had the same result

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You say that yoyur the one to argue, but you made no argument. Why should someone in a solid red or blue state bother to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate that supports genocide? (I'm excluding other races here to keep it simple)

If you really like a candidate, then I can see voting for them even if you know your vote is ultimately irrelevant. But, if you justifiably hate both candidates, one marginally less, a lesser of two evils argument only holds weight when your vote might actually matter.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)
  1. There are quite a few more people in the article than the summary - I bet you’d also spot a bunch that give invalid reasons
  2. If your single issue is the atrocity in Gaza, both support that so it is not a valid decision. If you believe Trumps words, he’d make it worse.
  3. Your vote always matters, even if it’s the lesser of two evils. Even if it didn’t affect the results this time
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You didn't comment on the article, you responded to my point on a singular common justification.

Trump and Harris both support the genocide making (theoretical) me uncomfortable voting for either. If my vote might matter, then I would hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil. If not, then I'd rather signal my disapproval of both.

Saying that my vote always matters is a nice cliche, but you know perfectly well that in a bunch of states it's just not true. If my vote put Harris over the top in Illinois, it's an absolute certainty that she got destroyed nationally. So, even if my vote mattered, it wouldn't matter that it mattered.

If the only real consequence of my vote is an impotent signal of approval, then not voting is an impotent signal of disapproval. That matters just as much, if not more.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Trump and Harris both support the genocide making (theoretical) me uncomfortable voting for either.

Theoretical you and a bunch of real people just didn't give a shit about the fact that Trump is going to add domestic genocide to the agenda. Theoretical you was told directly by Trump himself that immigrants were "vermin" and "criminals" and he was going to get them all on the track to deportation on day one. Theoretical you should have taken a few seconds to put two and two together and realize that means concentration camps and anyone with darker skin being suspected.

But even if theoretical you is one of those darker-skinned people, you thought, "well he's not going to put me in a ~~concentration~~ deportation camp, so I don't have to worry about that while there's a genocide happening on the other side of the world that both candidates support."

It's pretty fucking heartless of theoretical you and all the actual people who didn't give a flying fuck about anyone but themselves, but liked to pretend they cared by pretending that the one genocide was the only genocide.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm certainly convinced that you are a Democrat. I can tell because you ignored what I said and gave the rant you wanted to give, completely oblivious to the fact that none if it applies to what I said. You can't get any more Democratic than that. Scolding voters is not a great strategy.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

As long as you are "certainly convinced," the truth doesn't matter now does it?

[–] Anamnesis@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You're ignoring the fact that this person clearly would have voted for Harris if they were in a swing state. Harris did not lose Illinois and this person got to avoid getting blood on their hands via voting for perpetuation of genocide. That sounds far more ethical and rational than just knee jerk voting no matter what.