• halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    They’re voting for who they want. That doesn’t mean that the vote is smart or actually does anything near what they want to achieve. In our current system, it is a stupid vote that helps the person they don’t want to win.

    Given the context of how current US elections work, they are therefore stupid to vote that way. They have a right to, that doesn’t mean it’s a smart decision.

    • Socialist Berserker@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      And you don’t think they are intelligent enough to know all of this. Are you saying that you don’t think they are as smart as you when it comes to nuances of elections and voting?

      I just wanna clarify, because I’m reading a lot of “Well I’m smart enough to know, but they aren’t…” vibes into what you are writing. So I want to clarify.

      If more people consistently voted for what they believed in instead of out of fear, the political landscape would begin to shift. Dismissing those votes as useless only perpetuates the problem of limited choice, and change is never achieved by sticking to the status quo.

    • Socialist Berserker@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I think calling someone’s vote “stupid” based on the current system overlooks the obvious fact that our political system itself is messed up.

      Voting for a third party isn’t necessarily about immediate victory. It’s about challenging a broken duopoly that constantly limits our options.

      If more people consistently voted for what they believed in instead of out of fear, the political landscape would begin to shift. Dismissing those votes as useless only perpetuates the problem of limited choice, and change is never achieved by sticking to the status quo.