Image Transcription:

A tweet from the George Takei Twitter account which states:

"A Democrat was in the White House when my family was sent to the internment camps in 1941. It was an egregious violation of our human and civil rights.

It would have been understandable if people like me said they’d never vote for a Democrat again, given what had been done to us.

But being a liberal, being a progressive, means being able to look past my own grievances and concerns and think of the greater good. It means working from within the Democratic party to make it better, even when it has betrayed its values.

I went on to campaign for Adlai Stevenson when I became an adult. I marched for civil rights and had the honor of meeting Dr. Martin Luther King. I fought for redress for my community and have spent my life ensuring that America understood that we could not betray our Constitution in such a way ever again.

Bill Clinton broke my heart when he signed DOMA into law. It was a slap in the face to the LGBTQ community. And I knew that we still had much work to do. But I voted for him again in 1996 despite my misgivings, because the alternative was far worse. And my obligation as a citizen was to help choose the best leader for it, not to check out by not voting out of anger or protest.

There is no leader who will make the decision you want her or him to make 100 percent of the time. Your vote is a tool of hope for a better world. Use it wisely, for it is precious. Use it for others, for they are in need of your support, too."

End Transcription.

The last paragraph I find particularly powerful and something more people really should take into account.

  • Lianodel ( Lianodel@ttrpg.network ) English
    99·
    3 years ago

    Hoo boy. Against my better judgment, I’ll wade into this pool.

    1. If voting for either party gets you the same result, fascists wouldn’t be so focused on elections and trying so hard to take the vote away.

    2. Withholding your vote doesn’t do anything. When has losing an election pushed either party left?

    3. Voting doesn’t prevent you from engaging in other forms of direct action.

    Both parties suck. People will needlessly suffer and die no matter who wins. But there are also people who will suffer and die under one party but not the other, and the same can’t be said the other way around. Our democracy is fundamentally flawed, but voting is a tool at our disposal, and we’re in no position to turn anything down.

    • jeremyparker ( jeremyparker@programming.dev ) 
      41·
      3 years ago

      Before Obama, I could still remain quiet when people said “voting for anyone is implicit approval,” or whatever - and for the most part, they’re right - voting is a pretty low level of change.

      I voted for Obama because even if he is a bit of a tool, he’s black, and now a huge group of minority kids saw someone who looks like them in the white house. I voted for him not because of the “HOPE” on his signs but literally to give black kids hope. (And yeah, for the most part, it’s false hope, just like it is for white kids, welcome to the club.) He was a positive symbol and, if it’s a symbol who is also a centrist Democrat, that’s better then a centrist Democrat that isn’t a positive symbol. And a shit ton better than Mitt Romney or whoever the other guy was.

      And then Trump happened, and any respect for the “don’t vote” viewpoint drained out. If you still think both parties are the same at this point, you might want to start asking yourself what else is going on with you - because “not great” is not identical to “fucking terrible”…

      Biden isn’t doing what I want him to do - health care, income inequality, corruption in Congress, etc - but the infrastructure bill isn’t a bad thing. It’s actually a good thing, we need it. We need a lot more, but 1 > 0.

      • Lianodel ( Lianodel@ttrpg.network ) English
        12·
        3 years ago

        Also, to be blunt… we’ve seen this before. We know from recent history what happens when the DNC nominates the safe, centrist, establishment candidate, who fails to appeal to voters and loses to a Republican. That was 2016. Hillary Clinton lost to Trump. And who did the DNC rally behind right before Super Tuesday? That’s right… Joe Biden.

    • Gormadt ( Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) OP
      31·
      3 years ago

      The amount of people in this thread who don’t understand how our voting system works is too damn high

      You’re absolutely correct in your points

      Especially the “against my better judgement” part, this comment section went to hell really quick

    • Malgas ( Malgas@beehaw.org ) English
      11·
      3 years ago

      Withholding your vote doesn’t do anything.

      Well, not anything good. But it’s mathematically equivalent to half a vote for the major party candidate you like least.

      • Gormadt ( Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) OP
        4·
        3 years ago

        Personally I’d much rather have the candidate I like the least have a harder time winning

        Ideally they’d even lose

        Edit: Damn autocorrect changed my comment a lot with one simple wrong correction.

  • Rozaŭtuno ( Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 
    61·
    3 years ago

    “Democrats have always fucked me over but I keep voting for them because the alternative is actively more harmful”.

    No, I don’t find it touching nor powerful. This is a celebration of the failure of the 2 party system.

    • darq ( darq@kbin.social ) 
      41·
      3 years ago

      Wild how he doesn’t even mention the possibility of voting for a third party.

      Why would he? The US voting system makes third party candidates an impossibility. It’s not a viable option.

      • Gormadt ( Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) OP
        32·
        3 years ago

        To elaborate a little further: Our First Past the Post system makes third party candidates a spoiler candidate for the party they most closely resemble

        Say you’ve got 3 people running for a position. Person A and Person B are fairly similar but differ in some key points, Person C is the exact opposite of Person A.

        The election happens and this is the result: Person A gets 30%, Person B gets 30%, and Person C gets 40%. Person C wins, even though 60% of people didn’t want Person C.

        This is why third party candidates are usually considered “spoiler candidates”

        • darq ( darq@kbin.social ) 
          13·
          3 years ago

          Well, sorta but also not really.

          Neither party seems to have any interest in reforming the voting system to something more representative. So in that way I guess you could say they are colluding, but more reasonably they simply share a common incentive.

          But it really is the system itself that makes third party candidates basically impossible. It incentivises people to vote strategically, not for the party they want but rather against the party they don’t want. That system is eventually sure to collapse into a two-party system.

      • Lemvi ( Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
        2·
        3 years ago

        I understand that. What baffles me is how willing he is to accept the FPTP system they have in the US, especially with his history. Given the beginning of his tweet, you’d think he’d conclude with an appeal to reform the system, to make it viable to vote for third parties. Instead, he acts as if the system was a constant of the universe, not a man made one that can quite easily be changed. He lays down the perfect argument for a reform of the system, without actually speaking out in favor of it. Thats whats wild to me.

    • amio ( amio@kbin.social ) 
      22·
      3 years ago

      That’s because unless they get rid of the first-past-the-post system, it’s 100% wasted.

      Unfortunately, FPTP also keeps the existing dominant parties complacent in only having one enemy, so they don’t actually have to try very hard. So changing it is unlikely to gather a lot of steam, either. “Lesser evil” sucks, but is ironically a lesser evil than just throwing away the vote entirely.

      • Sprucie ( Sprucie@feddit.uk ) 
        4·
        3 years ago

        I disagree with this mindset.

        In a purely hypothetical scenario say 10% of people vote for the third party candidate, and this candidate has policies which neither of the two main parties have, say more green policies. When the results come in and one of the main parties lose by 5%, they’re going to start thinking about adopting a few more green policies to capture some of that third party vote for the next election.

        Voting third party can absolutely change the policies of the main parties, it happened in the UK with UKIP - a party which had less than 10% of the vote and no chance of a majority, but it spooked the big parties enough that they promised a referendum on EU membership.

      • Lemvi ( Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
        1·
        3 years ago

        He doesn’t mention protest votes though, only not voting out of protest, which is something entirely different imo. Not voting can be interpreted as satisfaction with the status quo, while a protest vote is the opposite, a clear statement of rejection of all available choices. Not voting is quiet approval, a protest vote an active display of discontent.

        Also, I disagree that a vote for a third party is a protest vote. I usually vote for a fringe party, but I’m not doing so to protest the system or ruling parties, but simply because I think they are the best candidates.

        Finally I don’t agree with the idea that I am throwing away my vote by voting for an unpopular candidate. If anything, I am doing the opposite, I am making my will known. The people who decide that this vote has no worth are the ones throwing away my vote and they are the ones undermining democracy.

    • Rodeo ( Rodeo@lemmy.ca ) 
      12·
      3 years ago

      You have to spoil your ballot of you want to not vote in protest.

      Every ballot that is cast is counted, even spoiled ones. But if you don’t cast a ballot at all, it cannot be counted and no one will ever know of your “protest”.

      The only valid way to protest by not voting is to spoil your ballot.

    • Neato ( Neato@kbin.social ) 
      2·
      3 years ago

      I think using a vote strategically is fine, but I also think not voting out of protest is fine.

      It’s amazing how you contradict yourself in your first sentence.

  • gayhitler420 ( gayhitler420@lemm.ee ) 
    5·
    3 years ago

    Shoo, they’re breaking out the pablum early this time.

    Rather than doing your duty to the democrats, why not recognize the weakness their propaganda indicates and use it to force them to take policy positions you want to get your support?

      • gayhitler420 ( gayhitler420@lemm.ee ) 
        2·
        3 years ago

        First things first: I will never vote for joe Biden for any office. Never have and never will. You’re not gonna convince me to.

        With that out of the way, you can use the fact that a party which doesn’t line up perfectly with your values needs your support to get them to take action that you want. It’s not cruel or a betrayal. If you think there’s something the democrats can be doing better, now’s the time to get it because they need you.

        There’s not a single reason to just vote blue no matter who to use a turn of phrase from years past. If you think Biden and the democrats are doing a good job then push them to go even farther. If you think they’re doing a bad job but better than a different party, push them to do a better job.

        What’s great about using elections as a time to try to get concessions is it gives people who feel left out by parties a chance to be brought in. If the party makes good on their promises then they can get voters for life!

        Doesn’t a better democrat party with new support sound better than slogging out to the polls to vote against someone?

  • monkE ( monkE@feddit.ch ) 
    1·
    3 years ago

    In a democracy, if there is no alternative we have to vote for the lesser of the evil. It’s better to keep things worse, than to make it more worse, if there is no alternative. If an alternative is there, then absolutely. We should all be encouraging an alternative system in a democracy. But if nothing’s is available, then this.

    • knightly the Sneptaur ( knightly@pawb.social ) 
      1·
      3 years ago

      That’s the logical answer in the short term, but it also makes you a “safe” voter that the Democrats don’t have to care about in the long term.

      Don’t promise them your support in advance. Be a “swing” voter and make it clear to the party that if they want your vote they’ll have to earn it.