- cross-posted to:
- chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/9388376
Tweto by https://x.com/gaijingirl2026/status/2092235861265924137
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/9388376
Tweto by https://x.com/gaijingirl2026/status/2092235861265924137
I don’t believe terms like “legitimising” have any practical purpose when used in this context. People vote democrat because they think it’s the most effective way to minimise harm, not because they want to signal allegiance or agreement with any one particular policy.
if you want to minimize harm, then having an incompetent leader like Trump steer the imperial ship and sinking it. Rather than a competent one. As the imperial ship harms way, way more people than every person living in Amerika.
Okay? In that case I declare I dont really believe it matters whether you vote for a democrat or a republican since they’re the same. There we go, I win, thats that discussion.
I dont really care what you believe, especially when the observable reality is one that differs from what you’d like it to be. It matters to politicians whether or not people vote for them and they use it to determine how much appeasement to capital they can get away with. Politicians do not walk around and ask voters whether they got the vote in spite of a policy or not. They win and, correctly, assume that the course they’ve kept is one they can continue on.
On top of that they use the amount of votes they receive as legitimising their rule. They quote it in speeches, they use it in their retrospectives, it is the foundation on which they rest their claim of experience when they train new generations and when they try to push legislation through. Voting for a politician signals you support them and their policy, thats what a vote is.
If you actually believe democrats and republicans are the same then yes, you “win”. Voting third party would be the correct choice.
The existence of the phrase “strategic voting” proves a vote is not a blind show of support. A vote in a FPTP system reveals only that you think that candidate is 1. better than the alternatives and 2. meaningfully more likely to win if you vote for them. Adhering to the politicians’ lie that a vote means full support isn’t logically consistent with how people make choices in the voting booth. Even in ranked choice voting a vote doesn’t signal full support, although it would only signal #1 and not #2, which is a meaningful improvement.
Why do you types insist on pretending that you’re more obtuse than a caveman? Do you pretend not to understand arguments because you know you cannot make it in a straightforward discussion ?
If you put faith in the electoral system, yes. Glas we agree.
As did your statement that voted despite certain policies. As I’ve detailed, that doesn’t matter.
So you admit politicians claim legitimacy from votes. Neat. What isn’t logical is then continuing to support them, when that is what they do.
Again, the rest of your spiel is pointless. What matters is the practical reality of what a vote is and does, which you’ve admitted yourself is a sign that you support that politician. You can say whatever you want to make yourself feel good about voting for genociding police-state fascists, the police state fascists only care that you vote for them, not why.