Is voting useless in the US?

[West AppalachiaNS]

Presidential voting? Sorta. If you live outside one of those screwy swing states you can pretty much count on your electoral vote going the predictable way.

Local voting is usually more legitimate and likely bound to effect you more generally in any case

[Juche Fingolia]

Lol yes, it's always been:

Vote for Neoliberal candidate #1

NO! Vote for Neoliberal candidate #2

Or, you could always vote for Useless third party!

I feel sorry for the Greens, various socialist and progressive parties, even the libertarians in America that they have to deal with bipartisanism of two parties pretty much indistinguishable from each other in the end. It's still the Democratic-Republican Party, the separation is entirely superficial in nature.

[Cordel One]

As if my constant complaining on a little-known browsergame forum is hindering leftist goals

For a supposed leftist, you're not good at seeing interconnection of things.

For a supposed leftist you have a really warped idea of the influence I have over the political system. Nobody outside a few people on NationStates knows who Cordel is and I'm not exactly famous irl either.

[Postauthoritarian America]

Lol yes, it's always been:

Vote for Neoliberal candidate #1

NO! Vote for Neoliberal candidate #2

Or, you could always vote for Useless third party!

I feel sorry for the Greens, various socialist and progressive parties, even the libertarians in America that they have to deal with bipartisanism of two parties pretty much indistinguishable from each other in the end. It's still the Democratic-Republican Party, the separation is entirely superficial in nature.

Green = Getting Republicans Elected Every November

[Plzen]

Green = Getting Republicans Elected Every November

I mean, in this year's elections allegedly the Libertarians splitting the right-liberal vote put Biden into office, so it very much works both ways.

But either way it goes on to show how ridiculous this plurality electoral system the Americans have is.

[Postauthoritarian America]

Green = Getting Republicans Elected Every November

I mean, in this year's elections allegedly the Libertarians splitting the right-liberal vote put Biden into office, so it very much works both ways.

But either way it goes on to show how ridiculous this plurality electoral system the Americans have is.

The national popular vote is actually not so bad, it's the Electoral College, a relic of slavery meant to give the most reactionary elements in US society an outsize voice in choosing the Executive that has outlived any usefulness it ever had and that currently allows Republicans to occupy the Presidency by beating the spread, that is the ridiculous bit.

[Shofercia]

The 2020 US election has so far failed to materialise the changes that were expected. Therefore, I wanted to ask: is voting useless in the US for change and progressivism? Will people finally realise the futility of electoralism there, and begin to use methods of direct action such as general strike and disruption? Or do you still believe that voting isn't useless in their system?

I've argued that voting in the US has been useless for some time due to the broken and outdated electoral system, although I didn't post this yesterday to avoid accusations that I'm a Russian spy/Chinese saboteur/Kim Yo-Jung. I think the only way forward would be direct action such as large scale nonviolent protests and strikes. But that is my opinion, and I want to ask you in the words of comrade Lenin, "what is to be done?"

You can combine general strike and economic disruption with voting. So no, voting isn't useless, but you should do general strikes/economic disruption when you feel oppressed, until the other side learns to compromise.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

No. Progressives haven't had a win in a while, and probably won't get many under Biden (due to the Senate).

But ask a reactionary. They'll likely be pretty happy with the "anti-progress" their vote has got them.

And conservatives, the easiest to please. Everything moldering and falling apart, good result.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

The way the US selects the presidential candidates seems more of a problem to me.

[The Alma Mater]

I mean, in this year's elections allegedly the Libertarians splitting the right-liberal vote put Biden into office, so it very much works both ways.

But either way it goes on to show how ridiculous this plurality electoral system the Americans have is.

The national popular vote is actually not so bad, it's the Electoral College, a relic of slavery meant to give the most reactionary elements in US society an outsize voice in choosing the Executive that has outlived any usefulness it ever had and that currently allows Republicans to occupy the Presidency by beating the spread, that is the ridiculous bit.

How would you arrange it in a way that "all states matter" - and not just the few with major cities ?

[Plzen]

How would you arrange it in a way that "all states matter" - and not just the few with major cities ?

61% of the US population is non-Hispanic White. How does the American government currently guarantee that all races matter, and not just the ones with the greatest numbers?

This strange idea that geographic minorities should be given disproportionate representation so they can contest the geographic plurality continues to persist, for some inexplicable reason, when it is blatantly obvious how ridiculous it is when you extend to other forms of political minorities this idea of giving minorities a disproportionate voice to prevent a supposed tyranny of the majority.

Not to mention the more fundamental absurdity of trying to solve the problem of the tyranny of the majority by taking the powers that a majority will supposedly be able to use against a minority to enact tyranny and giving it to the minority for use against the majority.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The way the US selects the presidential candidates seems more of a problem to me.

That's up to the parties. If they so chose, they could regionalize that too: five or six regions which vote from the candidate-candidates there and the top two from each region go into the First Debate.

[Wizlandia]

The 2020 US election has so far failed to materialise the changes that were expected. Therefore, I wanted to ask: is voting useless in the US for change and progressivism? Will people finally realise the futility of electoralism there, and begin to use methods of direct action such as general strike and disruption? Or do you still believe that voting isn't useless in their system?

I've argued that voting in the US has been useless for some time due to the broken and outdated electoral system, although I didn't post this yesterday to avoid accusations that I'm a Russian spy/Chinese saboteur/Kim Yo-Jung. I think the only way forward would be direct action such as large scale nonviolent protests and strikes. But that is my opinion, and I want to ask you in the words of comrade Lenin, "what is to be done?"

Yes, democracy is useless when people don't vote the way you want.

In all seriousness, no, voting isn't useless. The reasons why progressives aren't winning isn't because voting is futile, its just unlike in NS most ppl in the US aren't progressives. That and older people, who skew non-progressive, vote more. And the electoral system, while not perfect, is hardly broken.*

As for strikes and disruption, I think that'd make others less sympathetic towards progressive/left-wing politics, especially if such disruption were to turn violent.

*Edit: That being said, I would like MMP or other alternatives to FPTP.

[Wizlandia]

Lol yes, it's always been:

Vote for Neoliberal candidate #1

NO! Vote for Neoliberal candidate #2

Or, you could always vote for Useless third party!

Trump, the well known neolib

Not to mention Biden and Obama aren’t neolibs, although I realise some here think anyone right of the nordic model is a neolib.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

How would you arrange it in a way that "all states matter" - and not just the few with major cities ?

61% of the US population is non-Hispanic White. How does the American government currently guarantee that all races matter, and not just the ones with the greatest numbers?

This strange idea that geographic minorities should be given disproportionate representation so they can contest the geographic plurality continues to persist, for some inexplicable reason, when it is blatantly obvious how ridiculous it is when you extend to other forms of political minorities this idea of giving minorities a disproportionate voice to prevent a supposed tyranny of the majority.

Not to mention the more fundamental absurdity of trying to solve the problem of the tyranny of the majority by taking the powers that a majority will supposedly be able to use against a minority to enact tyranny and giving it to the minority for use against the majority.

The only way minorities can be effectively represented is if they self-identify and find the party which represents them, then vote it in however tiny a percentage that means in Parliament. Their representatives (or party of representatives) can only achieve anything other than a voice, by joining a coalition on the terms set and negotiated by the minority's representative.

If the minority among voters is black (13%) then the Black Party might get 8% of the vote. And whatever the Party does in power, it can't get the numbers up much higher, because if it goes in hard for urban black poor it gets a few more votes from them, but loses some black voters who don't like "their" party stereotyping black people as poor, drug addicts, etc. What's happening is that given the opportunity to "identify as black" it becomes apparent that not all black people have the same ordering of issues and can't unite behind a narrow agenda of specifically black issue ... even as well as they used to unite behind the more comprehensive Democratic agenda.

I think that's actually GOOD for minorities. They're getting better quality (more focussed on their issues) and more choice (the Dems and Reps may exist, but one at least will be much smaller). In the sense that everyone is a minority of some sort, but they just don't know it because their interests are bundled in with that of other minorities by the Two Party system, proportional representation is better for all minorities because it's better for all voters. Unless their minority interest is under 2%, everyone gets represented before the deciding votes (in Parliament) wherein an actual majority is required.

[Plzen]

Trump, the well known neolib :eyebrow:

Not to mention Biden and Obama aren’t neolibs, although I realise some here think anyone right of the nordic model is a neolib.

It's one of those debates that would be greatly improved if there were some precise consensus definitions of the key terms involved.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Hardly the end all be all solution to all our national woes, but it is not really useless if you get good reformists on the ballot and enough people to vote for them.

[Wizlandia]

Trump, the well known neolib

Not to mention Biden and Obama aren’t neolibs, although I realise some here think anyone right of the nordic model is a neolib.

It's one of those debates that would be greatly improved if there were some precise consensus definitions of the key terms involved.

Well, one of the defining characteristics of neoliberalism is pro-free trade and anti-protectionism (and generally pro-immigration too). So Trump is automatically an LOL.

Neoliberalism: Think Washington Consensus, the Economist Magazine, Thatcher, Osborne, Friedman, Greenspan, Bernanke, etc. Very economically liberal and pro-market.

The Wikipedia page on neoliberalism is in general pretty good background on what neoliberalism is, you could perhaps extend it to Bill Clinton’s third-way liberalism of the ‘90s too, but it really becomes a stretch to say the modern Democratic establishment is neoliberal. They retain some pro-market views (so does the nordic model tbh), but that’s mainly because they’re pragmatists.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Trump, the well known neolib

Not to mention Biden and Obama aren’t neolibs, although I realise some here think anyone right of the nordic model is a neolib.

It's one of those debates that would be greatly improved if there were some precise consensus definitions of the key terms involved.

I hung out with card-carrying Communists for a couple of years, and some less conventional communist and anarchist types.

Everyone who wasn't one of us was Bourgeois!

The nearest we met to identifiable Nazis were the Skinheads. They were Bourgeois Reactionaries. Not to their faces of course.

[Deacarsia]

Voting is useless in the United States, especially since the Democrats have stolen the 2020 presidential election.

[The Alma Mater]

Voting is useless in the United States if the Democrats are allowed to steal the 2020 presidential election.

If by stealing you mean "win it by getting more votes, despite the GOP engaging in active sabotage and voter suppression" - why ?

[The Sherpa Empire]

The 2020 US election has so far failed to materialise the changes that were expected.

The new administration hasn't even taken office yet. Have some patience. Holy hell, man.

[Fluffy Panda]

US fits within the definition of "elective dictatorship" as per former lord chancellor of the UK Lord Hailsham. I would also agree with him that, electing one human authority for them to rule us is not viable nor efficient. So voting one in power in current system isn't just useless, but also dangereous.

[Federation of American States]

of course it is. its a flip of the coin establishment coin, both parties want to pit people against each other
the Republicans and democrat's are two wings of the same Mangy Bird

[Esalia]

Voting is useless in the United States if the Democrats are allowed to steal the 2020 presidential election.

You spelt "win an election the way it's supposed to be won (by winning more votes)" wrong.

If anyone's trying to steal the 2020 election, it's Trump and the Republicans that support him in that.