2020 was… truly unique. It was so hard to stay away from doom scrolling, and I (and many others) were pretty disillusioned by the sad fact that so much of our country legitimately supported the Orange Man. I didn’t get a wink of sleep the night of the election because I genuinely considered it to be a make or break decision for America.
My point is that looking back on it, in the end the only real difference I made was at the ballet box. This year I’m going for the Head-in-the-Sand approach. I’m done with the political memes. Done with the Twitter screenshots. It just riles me up and this year I’m gonna do my best to fight that.
I’m voting for the most progressive candidate possible in the primary, and then whoever’s not the Republican in the general, and I fully intend to do that for the rest of my life.
The Republican Party has some plans they’re putting together, and between that and the rhetoric that most major Republican politicians and candidates spout these days (very specifically including Trump), it’s abundantly clear they’ve more or less completely given up on democracy, and are planning on dismantling a significant proportion of the core institutions of our country and government, which will effectively usher in the American Empire (as in: a possibly theocratic, but definitely authoritarian and likely outright fascist dictatorship). To be clear: that would be a Very Bad Thing. You think Russia is troublesome now? Wait until Trump or someone similar starts treating them like an ally, emulating as much of Putin’s power structure as possible just because they think it’s cool and would make them look powerful, and potentially teaming up to do shitty things to the rest of the world because we have something like 95% of the nuclear weapons ever produced, and while Russian ones are in a questionable state, ours definitely work.
If Republicans win this next election - and especially if they are able to secure the presidency and both houses of Congress - I genuinely don’t think things will recover without significant domestic political violence, which may ultimately result in a civil war. I’m doing my best to prepare for some “GTFO” contingencies that could be executed in the next few years, but it’s not an easy thing to do, and there’s still a huge number of unknowns in a ton of dimensions.
If you think I’m being hyperbolic, you’re not paying attention.
Oh hey look, it’s the only rational voting strategy in a FPTP elective structure! Anyone who thinks different is just more evidence we need Civics back in our schools.
more evidence we need Civics back in our schools
Maybe we need more math as well - have you heard of the Ultimatum Game? Sometimes the rational strategy is to reject unfair split offers, even if that makes it a guarantee that you both get nothing.
I’ve taught game theory. Voting isn’t the Ultimatum game, because the most a third party is going to do is shave off a few percentage points, resulting in the main party losing, resulting in the main party generally becoming more conservative. Look who ran after Reagan - the entire Democratic Party shifted right with the third way. Look who we ran after Trump.
In voting the way it’s currently configured, there are two elements from game theory that apply. The first is minimax strategy - minimize the maximum damage your enemy can do. Above all that means keeping republicans out of office if you care about minimizing harm to women, minorities and immigrants, the poor, and the LGBT community.
The second concept that applies is the BATNA - the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. If the negotiated agreement fails (we get a left democrat on the ballot) our next best alternative is to get a Democrat elected.
We came within a hair’s breadth of not having another election, and at the very least we will be looking at a roll back of LGBT rights, a nationwide abortion ban, and a massive crackdown that will make sure they don’t lose any more elections.
removed by mod
Sounds great, but then the genie grants it and you don’t get any more elections, sham or otherwise. I’ll take the illusion of democracy over blatant mask-off fascism, personally.
removed by mod
Lotta unsubstantiated assumptions about me there. Maybe reassess your own biases before offering analysis.
the most a third party is going to do is shave off a few percentage points, resulting in the main party losing
If the third party can force the main party to lose, then it holds ultimatum power and game theory rules apply. The main party irrationally keeps rejecting the ultimatum and as a result keeps losing. To execute the threat of the ultimatum even after the unfair split has already been offered is the paradox of game theory. You have to appear credible enough to carry out such a threat, but the only reliable way to appear credible is to actually follow through on such threats every time.
The Democratic party keeps losing and shifting right because it acts irrationally and fails to execute optimal game theory strategy. It could have offered the left a fair split and we could have all had guaranteed single-payer medical care, food, and housing, but instead none of us will have women’s rights, and the immigrants and gays among us will be herded into cages.
That is literally not how it works. That’s how people think it should work, but when you see that it doesn’t, you have to turn back and review your premises and your model. I know the way you think it should work and how you want it to work, but when it doesn’t work you need to revise.
The problem is this - the feedback loop is insufficient and the correlation is unclear. If you are directly negotiating with someone, then you can play Ultimatum. If you are one of a hundred million people casting a vote for one person or another, you cannot. Perot cost Bush I the election, and Nader cost Kerry the election. Neither party decided that they needed to move in the direction of the spoiler candidate. They’re especially not going to do so for 3p candidates who pull in the low single digits, even if they lose by low single digits, because they’ll think they can get more by moving towards the center.
You can vote however you want, but don’t base it on a theoretical foundation that has less than zero application to the scenario you’re modeling. It really, honestly is a minimax choice, and if you are truly an ally for those of us in marginalized communities, you have to recognize it.
I’m not being a right winger here - I’m a member of the DSA and this is in line with what they (and people like Chomsky) advise. But I’m not talking about even that angle. I’m just talking minimax and BATNA. If negotiations fail (ie we didn’t get Bernie), the best alternative is Hillary. At least Roe wouldn’t have been overturned and we wouldn’t have states suing to make ten year olds give birth to their rapist’s babies.
So I am proposing that the Democratic party is acting irrationally and suboptimally, but you claim that the Democrats are acting most optimally, and it is the fringe left that is acting irrationally instead by refusing to accept a unfair split against all game theory guidance, causing all of us to eat shit (despite them making up only low single digits). Yet if the Democrats are so rational, how come they keep losing? Shouldn’t they have found an optimal strategy to get around the irrational ultimatum of the left? Yet here we are.
I do not mean this to come off as blunt as it sounds, but I’m trying to be both clear and concise.
What you’re talking about is not how game theory works. What you’re doing is taking the most basic, highly abstracted representation of a generic idea and expecting it to correlate with reality. It’s the same thing people do when they ascribe some kind of wish fulfillment to the free market or to evolutionary dynamics. It’s not even a platonic ideal - it’s drawing a supply/demand curve and thinking you understand how prices work in a market economy. Here’s the main issues you’re running into when you try to play Ultimatum with something the size of the Democratic Party:
- Noise. There is a permanent base of 3-5% of the electorate that’s going to vote Green, or whatever. The protest voters almost never rise above that noise floor. Focus on a single (potentially complex) issue would help. Green rallies (and others) often have everything from antivax to prison reform to the environment to voting rights to BDS and BLM. All of those things (except the antivax) might be important, but there needs to be a central focus. IMO it’s voting rights - I’d love DSA to drop everything to just start suing states and protesting for voting rights, because everything else is lost without that. We can even both/and, as long as there’s a vision and a focus on a main first objective. Right now we’re coming off like a bunch of verses from We Didn’t Start the Fire. Ultimatum with multiplayer and a noise function is a completely different game.
- Feedback loop. The consequences for actions needs to be tightened up, and they need a wide base. There needs to be visible and constant representation out in front of both cameras and politicians. This can be people like the Squad or figures like Robert Reich, but there needs to be a uniform voice that doesn’t wait for the election cycle. Groups like Moms for Liberty have this kind of thing on lock. They have a brand and spokespersons and will host and endorse, or else attack on Fox News within hours of a political decision. They’re shit in every way, but they can work the machine. Ultimatum with a delayed feedback loop is a completely different game because the failure of the deal is less attributable.
- Solidarity and messaging. The majority of Americans want universal health care. The majority of Americans want green energy. The majority of Americans want a cease fire in Gaza. By spreading opinions across multiple realizations of this top level policy objectives, we dilute the message. Ultimatum requires identifiable players with identifiable agendas.
We as voters aren’t playing Ultimatum. Instead, we are playing minimax as an emergent strategy to defend the rights of marginalized populations.
Sometimes the rational strategy is to reject unfair split offers, even if that makes it a guarantee that you both get nothing.
Yup. Mutually assured destruction: either the malfeasant and murderous can get right and start fixing what they’ve ruined, or I don’t have a single issue becoming a lead weight around the country’s neck. Ain’t like this country hasn’t tried to kill me by cop more than once anyway, I have no reason to want to see this awful joke of an empire perpetuate.
Is there a neutral review of project 2025 that you can point to? That site is ass and either points to a book you can buy or a thousand links to PDFs.
Please define “neutral review” in this context.
The whole thing is unrepentantly and deeply biased, and it’s intentional.
I don’t know if this matches your definition of “neutral”, but it must be said that “neutral” is not synonymous with “unbiased”.
Yes I meant unbiased, but I was unsure if even using that word would be taken the wrong way. I don’t want to be taken as a centrist or anything like that, because I’m not even close.
I just want a flat clinical review of what it says versus what it actually means without clickbait sensationalism. It is plainly bad, that much is obvious. But what are the real-life, bureaucratic implications of its potential execution?
Thanks for the link, I’ll definitely check it out.
removed by mod
Probably vote blue all the way down the line but I’m going to be shitting on the democratic party publicly and loudly for all the fucked and/or cowardly shit they do because not as bad != not bad.
I honestly think the worst kinds are the delusional people who try to make themselves believe they’re “above it all” by voting Democrat for the president and then Republican for their representatives…
Ffs learn how government works in today’s era… Maybe that was ok 50 years ago, but now it’s just “you’re on the other team, fuck your clean bill that’s just saving puppies and children, I’m voting no so my supporters don’t see me voting with Democrats!”
Everyone should vote for whomever represents them best despite whatever letter follows their name, and everyone should know all of their local and state options to be able to do so. Please do the same for your primaries if you at least want a slim possibility of having a decent option. Ranked choice voting would help a lot, but engagement at least helps a little. Hell, third parties got elected this year even.
People blindly straight party ticket voting after skipping the primaries simply because they just hate the other team is how all the shitty entrenched old guard like Pelosi, Manchin, and McConnel (extra especially McConnel, who even republicans hate) stay in power on both sides. And forgetting about the primaries is how we end up with such weak ass candidates as Trump and Biden. It’s so good damn infuriating.
deleted by creator
Ignore all media, vote for whoever the democratic candidate is.
I realized that all the election media just makes me angry, and I already know who I’m NOT voting for, so there’s really only one choice anyways.
That is a very intelligent decision. I’m sure that every Democrat is the right choice!
Every Republican is the wrong choice.
You were given the gift of speech and this is what you do with it.
Fucks sake.
My state has open elections. In the primary, I’m voting for the least bad republican candidate. In the general, I’m voting democratic, which unfortunately probably means Biden but at least not trump.
I like Ike.
Jimmy Dore is moderating a presidental debate, I will watch that. Some info here, freeandequal.org
Super fucked both ways
It does not matter who I vote for for federal office. My state is never close to competitive and my house district is gerrymandered.
If fascists win my districts for state office, it will not affect the balance of power in the state assemblies.
So I told all of the Democrats running for state and local office that if there is not a primary for the presidential election, then I will not vote for any Democrats in the general elections in 2024, for any office. Maybe they can put pressure on the DNC.
This is the only way I can potentially have any input.
The only way this works is if Democrats would shift left if they started losing elections because people refused to vote for old white male conservative Democrats.
But I fear they would actually shift right. The Democratic Party is not a big tent that holds both the neoliberal corporate shills and the progressives. It is a hostage situation where the neoliberal corporate shills demand our support, otherwise the fascists will kill us.
I just want to say that your vote for the federal office does matter even if you live in a non-competitive state. Some states allocate a percentage of their electoral votes rather than all or nothing but even if yours does not, voting still adds a data point that says I support this person instead of that person. There have been several times where a candidate has won the presidency without winning the most votes but it was always very close to 50%. If everybody that had a preference voted and the outcome was 55% this guy / 45% the other guy and the other guy won… that could be a real driver for change to the electoral college system.
My state is winner take all.
If my vote does not affect outcome put only expresses support, I am voting for somebody actually good (often from the Green Party).
Even if it was 55/45, nothing would change. The Senate would be very close, if not in favor of the candidate who got 45%. The House would probably also be close, because the legislatures of the states that voted for the 45% candidate would still gerrymander. The only change could come from the states that voted for the 55%. If they gave all of their votes to whoever won the national popular vote, nothing would change. If they did proportional allocation, then it would get even worse.
My vote does not matter.
People who aren’t insane on social issues have been fleeing the GOP. This is, and will continue to pull Democrats right until some viable alternative emerges, if it ever does.
Hope my liver can outlive either Biden or Trump depending on who gets elected.
I’m not party affiliated, but I will vote for the Democratic Party candidate. It wouldn’t make any difference in my state, but I do it anyway. My state doesn’t swing, so I will probably send some money to Democratic candidates in closest out-of-state Senate races (I don’t waste money on sure winners or losers).
It’s a hold-my-nose thing, since I’m really only about 50% in agreement with them. I tend to swing farther left on certain issues and near-libertarian-right on others. My primary concern at this point is averting a slide further into fascism. I’ve spent quite a bit of time in formerly-fascist countries and it’s a messy thing to untangle. The scars last for generations.
Find the best candidates running by doing exhaustive research, then, if they meet a minimum standard, vote for them. If no candidate in a given race meets the minimum, abstain on that race. I’ll vote in the Democratic Party primary even though I’m not a Democrat just because that’s the de facto election for most offices here in Chicago.
I know in advance that most of the candidates I support in the primary won’t be in the general and most of the candidates I vote for in the general won’t win, and most of the candidates who I most want to keep out of office (because they’re corrupt) are running unopposed (because they’re corrupt). I know this but I’m still going to vote anyway, and encourage everyone else to vote as well, because that’s the only hope we have for improvement.
Same as every election the last decade. (Before I got married I never voted in the primary out of principle, but my spouse convinced me that was silly.)
The last time I was actually idealistic about an election was 2004. 2004 showed me the harsh realities of contemporary politics all too clearly.
I’m gonna become the gosh dang joker yall
Waiting for the impromptu Cornel West vs Jill Stein debate ig
Honestly there’s not that much one can do, but I will:
- Hope Trump is thrown in prison
- Vote straight ticket Democrat
- Hope another Jan. 6 doesn’t occur
- Try not to lose my shit when idiots say stuff like “both parties are equally bad”
I live in a solid blue state, so my national-level votes don’t do much (though I’ll cast them anyway).
In past years I’ve thrown a few hundred dollars at close senate and house races. In 2020 I volunteered for a phone/text bank sort of deal to make sure people were registered to vote.
Do people say both parties are equally bad? I’d agree that both parties are bad, but ‘equally’? Maybe a decade ago, but not anymore.
You’ll find republicans say that. Equally was more than a decade ago. They actually had a chance too. When the Tea Party started, it was actually grassroots. But then they got hijacked by people like the Coch brothers which twisted it to their desires.
I’m checked out of voting, I live in Texas. Nothing but card-carrying neo-nazis in this shithole. Shame too, because I’d love to live in Austin if I could afford to.
Maybe I’ll just vote PSL or something.
Hello fellow Texan. I also plan on “throwing my vote away” for PSL. If they are even on the ballot, that is.
Also, I recommend North Austin if you are looking for something less expensive. Depending on how close to the metro rail you are, life might be more car-dependant. But you’ll still be close to more like-minded individuals, and will have a clearer path towards moving more in town if you want.
