I’m pushing for RCV in local elections. This is a change that needs to happen from the ground up and won’t happen overnight but people really think that trying to convince internet strangers not to vote for two months every 4 years is the solution.

Where are you, Jill Stein? I guess campaigning for Putin really takes it out of you so you deserve your 44-month hibernation

The reasons for that are numerous, unfortunately. A few points stick out as readily apparent, though:

1. Democracy - the actual, hard work of democracy - is unexciting, to both the party apparatchiks and to normal people. The party apparatchiks want to feel like they’re performing GREAT deeds instead of laying the foundation of the foundation of the foundation, and act and speak in accordance with that desire, even if they’ve actually accomplished fuck-all. This denial of reality both reduces their popularity and hinders them from doing the work they need to do actually do instead of jacking themselves off. Normal people, similarly, dislike the feeling of powerlessness that comes with being just one vote in a system of literal millions, where even if you become the political equivalent of an ascetic monk training every waking moment of every waking day to sway the electorate, unless you have some exceptional (and thus, well, abnormal) charisma deep in you for making a literal political career out of it, the chances of you swaying even just a few hundred votes - a fraction of a fraction of a percentage - is pretty slim. That’s disheartening to a lot of people - so when the fascist ghouls say “EVERYONE SECRETLY AGREES WITH YOU BUT IS COWED BY THE LIBERALS INTO STAYING QUIET, WE JUST HAVE TO HIT THE LIBERALS REALLY HARD SO WE, THE STRONG AND CORRECT PEOPLE, CAN BE STRONG AND CORRECT” that is, unfortunately, appealing to the desire of many of them to feel powerful and victorious instead of being one more poor sod chipping away stone from a massive mountain.

2. When genuinely pro-democracy groups end up in power, they tend to act in accordance with what they feel is the will of the people. Unfortunately, to paraphrase a man of questionable wisdom but significant wit, democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people, but the people are fucking stupid (see: 78% of Americans thinking there was a ‘crisis’ at the Mexican border that needed to be ‘cracked down’ on). Ordinary people are generally not very politically informed in the modern day and don’t take their citizenship seriously - arguably this is an ancient problem, but no less relevant for that. Which means that any measures taken by genuinely pro-democracy groups are pretty inevitably hampered by Joe Average in the suburbs who gets his news from 30 minute (including commercials) CNN clips every Friday as dinner cooks getting worked up by immensely biased interpretations of issues he doesn’t understand to begin with. When there’s mass outcry against a measure, even one that is genuinely good for democracy or society, pro-democracy groups tend to shrink back in the face of real or perceived majority opposition. Not unfairly, considering the nature of democracy and the principles of it, but definitely something that ends up making democratic (small d) movements less ‘efficient’ at replacing worn-out institutions than fascist ghouls, who push until the pushback becomes threatening to their power, not to their principles (as fascists have no principles).

3. When nominally pro-democracy groups (ie both genuine ideologues and non-genuine opportunists) end up in power, they tend to feel obligated to act within the limits of the government they have been elected to. This is to preserve the legitimacy of their democratic mandate - if the people vote for you to have X powers in Y circumstances, unilaterally saying “Oh, suddenly I have MORE powers in MORE circumstances” comes off as a violation of what power the people invested in you - and even if you don’t give a fuck about the people, it is the perceived legitimacy lent by the approval or acquiescence of the people which gives standing institutions their power. As such, nominally pro-democracy groups have much less leeway for violating established laws and norms, even if it might actually be better - whether for their political org or for society in general.

There are many more issues, but that’s a… relatively brief and broad overview of some of the problems.

It’s generally good to reflect on events so that one doesn’t repeat the same goddamn mistakes over and over and over again. You know, like in the 1930s and the 2020s.

But if elections matter at all in 2028, I fully expect that we’ll still be having this conversation on Lemmy. Even if we manage to put a progressive like AOC into the nomination seat, since numerous ‘leftists’ on here are full-bore on condemning people like Sanders and AOC as social fascists who are just as bad as the GOP, we will still be having this fucking conversation. And I will still be reminding people that letting the fascists win is a fucking mistake, in the vain hope of having that reminder kick around in the skull of one or two people who might otherwise stay home and think “Well, at least it wasn’t my fault!”

Cool, thanks for voting for “MORE funding for genocide”, the genocide of American marginalized groups, and the genocide of Ukrainians.

You’re the kind of ghoul who would’ve refused to vote in 1860 because Lincoln and the Republican Party weren’t advocating an immediate end to slavery. After all, you couldn’t possibly sully your hands with voting for imperfect candidates.