• voidMainVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    I never said “Don’t vote”. However, I do think that we should be able to vote “no confidence”, and if “no confidence” wins, they should have to do a while new election with new candidates.

    I vote for candidates who offer me something more than “I’m not a fascist”.

    There absolutely is a No Trump voting option - only one - and it’s voting for Biden.

    Voting for Biden is… voting for Biden. It sounds like you don’t want to improve anything, you just want to avoid it getting worse. Or, at least, have it get worse slower.

    • RandallFlagg@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well the fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a “no confidence” vote. And if you don’t want Trump in office in 2024 the best thing you can do to prevent that is vote Biden. I’m not a huge Biden fan either but that’s how our system is in this country so it is what it is.

    • kool_newt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That would still be mathematical spoiler, a no confidence vote would work on a ranked choice ballot though.


      If you want the world to get better, don’t expect any politicians in any party to get the job done. Don’t vote for what you want, vote for the candidate that will make your job of making the world a better place easier or even possible

      If it becomes illegal to feed the poor (e.g. parts of TX and other states I too think), speak against the government, etc how much change will be possible?

      Unless you’re one of those accelerationists.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      counterpoint: avoiding or slowing the rate at which things get worse is a good thing, and there is no other option outside your imagination

    • socsa
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Not a fascist” is only a sufficient condition in this case because the other guy is a fascist. I agree that in a world which wasn’t fucking insane, both candidates would qualify as “not a fascist” and it would be immaterial.

      But under these circumstances - yes. Voting “Not a fascist” is literally an imperative, if imperatives can possibly exist at all in our ethical landscape.

    • wagoner@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I get that you want another choice but this is the system we have to work within. If you really want it to be different, I recommend getting personally involved in politics.