They don’t. But even assuming they did, withholding a vote is going to increase the chances of a party who want to make things worse getting into power.
Your choices are between a terrible status quo and making the situation even worse. Why are you so intent on defending the choice that makes things worse?
There is no difference between this and a strike. Just like with striking if enough people are willing to take the risk the goal will be achieved. If not it results in a loss.
By actively opposing the activism you are ensuring the goal will not be reached. Which in the end will not even be to your benefit if you want ceasefire voters to vote for Harris.
In your analogy, Republican voters are the massive number of scabs coming in to replace the striking workers and thus making the strike ineffective or even counterproductive.
But also… You do understand that this isn’t a strike, right?
People who keep voting for poor policy are the scabs. Republicans are an entirely different company who have bad policies. We want to not become that company.
Ahh, I see… You’re confusing the shitty, corrupt union (Democrats) with the company (the USA).
We need to fix the US electoral system so that we have better choices. But until we can do so, we need to do harm reduction. Accelerationism, including in the form of not voting or voting third party, is not harm reduction.
There is no fixing the electoral system. You’re not going to fix a company from the inside. They will ban ranked choice voting if it ever starts gaining traction.
Two major examples of this are Bernie Sanders being ousted by the establishment when he was about to win in 2016 and UK’s Jeremy Corbyn who got straight coup’d by Zionists because he was about to win.
Democrats will use every dirty trick in the book they never use against Republicans if someone comes up who will challenge the establishment. The moment the elite is endangered they will break every single rule in the book to overthrow their challenger.
You cannot change the system from the inside if the people are the top have already proven they will never allow that.
They don’t. But even assuming they did, withholding a vote is going to increase the chances of a party who want to make things worse getting into power.
Your choices are between a terrible status quo and making the situation even worse. Why are you so intent on defending the choice that makes things worse?
Do you know how a strike works?
You do understand that this isn’t a strike, right?
What happens if one person goes on strike?
They get fired.
What happens if enough people go on a strike?
The company has to cave.
There is no difference between this and a strike. Just like with striking if enough people are willing to take the risk the goal will be achieved. If not it results in a loss.
By actively opposing the activism you are ensuring the goal will not be reached. Which in the end will not even be to your benefit if you want ceasefire voters to vote for Harris.
In your analogy, Republican voters are the massive number of scabs coming in to replace the striking workers and thus making the strike ineffective or even counterproductive.
But also… You do understand that this isn’t a strike, right?
People who keep voting for poor policy are the scabs. Republicans are an entirely different company who have bad policies. We want to not become that company.
Ahh, I see… You’re confusing the shitty, corrupt union (Democrats) with the company (the USA).
We need to fix the US electoral system so that we have better choices. But until we can do so, we need to do harm reduction. Accelerationism, including in the form of not voting or voting third party, is not harm reduction.
There is no fixing the electoral system. You’re not going to fix a company from the inside. They will ban ranked choice voting if it ever starts gaining traction.
Two major examples of this are Bernie Sanders being ousted by the establishment when he was about to win in 2016 and UK’s Jeremy Corbyn who got straight coup’d by Zionists because he was about to win.
Democrats will use every dirty trick in the book they never use against Republicans if someone comes up who will challenge the establishment. The moment the elite is endangered they will break every single rule in the book to overthrow their challenger.
You cannot change the system from the inside if the people are the top have already proven they will never allow that.
With such a defeatist attitude, why do you even care who people vote for?