I did vote so this isn't my personal opinion. I've been told many times it's "voting for the lesser of two evils, they're both evil and I don't agree with either." There's no real sense of choice. I can see it. It very much feels like that South Park episode where they have to vote for the school mascot. Do you want it to be a Giant Douche or, a Turd Sandwich? And then at the end it was all for nothing because they don't change their mascot so it was all pointless.

Edit: you guys can call me stupid all you want. It doesn't change the fact that I've heard this from coworkers and family repeatedly. I did vote. In fact, I've already voted in my primaries. The question was "why don't people vote?" I gave the answer of why I personally have been told by people they don't vote. Not liking my answer doesn't change the reality of it. I work in blue collar work. It's a very common view in my area. Or, they are pro Trump.

My personal opinion on why they don't vote or, don't vote in favor of things they support, they generally don't want to take the time to educate themselves. And for others, they don't want to feel responsible for voting when their candidate turns out to be nothing like they promised.

Because the Democrats also have a terrible climate policy?

But... But... Al Gore?

Neither party campaign's on climate policy so the problem is the party, not the voter.

I too have heard that argument but unfortunately those are usually the people who won't see reason. I rarely try to argue with them unless they express some type of will to learn or seem like they're questioning their beliefs. Some people just like to complain and refuse to help themselves, sad but true.

The real solution would be having more than 2 parties. I mean, TECHNICALLY we do but not really.

We might get some of them out to vote if there were someone on the ballot with progressive climate views they were willing to vote for. I'm not saying it's 100% guaranteed to work, but we could try it, just once maybe, and see what happens.

I believe the system is fundamentally broken but I still participate because you can't fix it by doing nothing. But yes, my coworkers are not people who's opinions will be changed by fact and reason. They're also the same people who say, "facts don't care about your feelings." Imagine that. But then they get all bent out of shape about how "no one is doing anything about this!" but then refuse to vote. My guy, you're not doing anything either!

This is an absolutely great point. We have so much thrown at us everyday especially in the media and social media. When nothing is covering it, you have no time to even think about it.

Uno reverse card

If so many people who care about the climate don't vote, then why don't politicians take a stronger line on the issue to appeal to them?

There's a very good reason for the sentiment and why people feel such a sense of dejection and apathy. Then it gets met with smug ripostes like the "bOtH sIdEs" spongetext shit or plain mockery as if it's something that just appeared out of nowhere.

It's just typical Democrat arrogance assuming that they are entitled to peoples votes without having to offer any material change, it also ties into why progressive and leftist candidates have to struggle to break through because they're fighting their own party first and foremost before they even get to fighting Republicans.

Yeah, I can honestly empathize with the people who believe this. Everything feels exhausting, overwhelming, and like nothing will ever change. Unfortunately for the people of that opinion though, NOT voting will ensure nothing changes. Or rather, that you had no hand in changing anything. Because everything will change eventually for good or bad.

guess i shouldn't have deleted. i thought maybe i had gone too far off topic.

You won’t be seeing much in the way of “climate change” messaging this time around because it’s been rolled into “reducing energy costs” messaging. Since LCOEs for solar and wind have fallen below natural gas plants, which were previously the cheapest if you ignored the SCC, politicians have decided to rebrand. Campaigning on cutting energy costs polls much better when the economy is in poor shape so this is more effective.

It’s also worth noting that the last time that Democrats controlled the legislature and the executive they took substantial action;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act#Energy_and_climate_change

They have reasonably positive policy, they just are as usual terrible at explaining activity.

The Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act had quite a bit of green incentives for regular people, and it created widespread solar and non-fossil-fuel home improvements that did (in my area at least) translate to a lot of green tech being installed, not just on-paper policy.

The GOP and Trump especially are irrationally hostile to green tech, and there are plenty of examples why they're materially worse - paying again just to cancel an already-paid-for wind farm project for example.

So this isn't really a "both sides suck" problem. One side has a slightly positive policy that could be a lot better. One side is in a psychotic delusional fugue and actively trying to destroy the planet.

Not sure where you saw that but it's actually central to the DNC platform.

Personally, I think this is more of a media diet issue. Climate policy isn't very engagement-baitey so the Social media algorithms don't push it.

The real solution would be having more than 2 parties. I mean, TECHNICALLY we do but not really.

You are going to have to fundamentally change the way we vote and how we count them. In a single-choice-vote, plurality system it will mathematically trend toward having exactly two viable choices, no matter how many are allowed on the ballot.

Mixed-member proportional would probably work well for the House and Senate, and some judicial/executive positions. Where that's not tenable (President, Governor, etc.) a Condorcet Method should be employed.

Yeah but it’s peak lib to blame voters for not voting hard enough, instead of demanding the bare minimum from those in power.

SMH

Exactly.

The United States has a problem with voter suppression, and a history of blaming societal problems on individuals to make it look like individual people are responsible instead of the people in charge.

Listen, existential threats are important and all, but there's a trans kid who wants to play soccer, and I vaguely remember something about a tan suit, so... I think I'll just sit this one out - surely my countrymen can be trusted to make the right decision!

Gotta have standards, ya know?

No one is going to open a restaurant where the target market is "people who don't go to restaurants". If you don't vote you don't matter to politicians and that's all there is to it.

Check any political thread here or elsewhere and you will hear a regular refrain of "both parties are the same" and "voting doesn't matter because it's all rigged!" A huge percentage of Americans have fallen for that line of bullshit and now don't bother to vote at all no matter what they think is important. It's a sad fact that propaganda works.

The problem of low voter turnout precedes the Internet. Low voter turnout is a symptom of the problem, it is not the problem itself.

Yeah, that's not true at all. The hundreds of millions spent on voter mobilization, get out the vote, rock the vote, voter education, voter registration, and all attendant campaigns is such an obvious massive counter to your inispid narrative.

Obama literally led the largest expansion of fossil fuel extraction in the history of the US.

Yep, spot on. And you got downvoted for saying it so we know your comment struck a nerve with someone who says or believes that bullshit.

It's not simple enough to make that statement. You obviously get worse politicians when people don't vote.

Not even that is true. Women fought for the right to vote without voting and they won. Black people fought for the right to vote without voting and they won. Voting doesn't change anything, it turns out. What changes things is when politicians writ large stand to lose something bigger than their seat, like control over society.

Yeah, I don't think that's obvious at all. Voter turnout has very rarely been a deciding factor in elections, and the current analysis by researchers is that voter turnout doesn't have partisan benefits. In essence, you get the same politicians regardless of voter turnout.

Maybe if people championed the good Democrats instead of spreading bullshit meant to encourage not voting and votes for Russian assets, Democrats would start getting better overall. Nah we should probably just go full tankie on this shit and pretend to be surprised when that doesn't help anything.

An absolutely ridiculous thing for you to expect people to believe. So fucking transparent what you're doing. Accelerationist bullshit.

You can really tell it's election season, every thread on 4chan and reddit is about trans people in sports. Bots heavily pushing it.

https://www.mic.com/articles/61105/does-this-new-study-explain-why-politicians-don-t-listen

ETA https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/01/16/is-it-accurate-to-say-politicians-dont-actually-care-what-voters-want/

The purpose of those programs is to increase turnout, not cater to the political leanings of likely non-voters. Dems don't give a shit what those people want they just want them to vote because statistically they would vote for Dems. The issues important to those voters rarely come up which is exactly my point.

I don't really expect a well reasoned response from someone going around saying things like "Europe can save Ukraine by disbanding NATO" though. Pull your head out of Putin's ass and have your own thoughts.

Well you see, not voting is actually pretty based and communist, and will help towards a revolution that will happen Soon.

It really shows politicians what's what.

They were terrible but I'd take a C- over the current F just saying. Not voting won't make them care more about climate change, hearing it in primaries from engaged voting populace is what dictates policy. It's why boomers had so much sway because they know they'll vote.

I think the conversation around voting, at least in the united states but also in almost any "democracy" in our current world, needs refocusing. We don't have democracy in any pure sense of the word. We have representative democracy. We vote for people who then make decisions on our behalf, and we have essentially no guarantee that they will do what they campaigned on. We've seen this play out time and time again. A vote in this setup is akin to an llm query in some capacities -- it is not deterministic, or even approaching it. I don't see the reasoning in pouting about people not engaging with a system that has clearly demonstrated it has essentially no effect on real world outcomes in adherence with their voiced will.

I'm truncating the corruption and voting as harm reduction conversation.

In a more coherent world, we would collectively vote on decisions and then select a person or group to implement those decisions in a scoped and instantly recallable fashion -- direct democracy, or even consensus. Robust decisions, informed by many perspectives. In feedback with the people and the ecology.

People are disengaging with our current system because it very clearly does not work. The only time it appeared to work was when there was the very real threat of an organized and mobilized public. We should be organizing our communities into solidaric networks of councils, unions, and cooperatives yesterday. Some people already are.

As an aside, I think it's wild that we're still having the voting conversation on slrpnk.net. Vote if you feel it helps stop the bleeding. But it won't mend the bone. That requires a more structural solution. And that is what we should be focusing on.

LOL. You have no idea what accelerationism is if you think that what I said is in any way related to accelerationism. You're just regurgitating things you've heard without understanding. Here, do some reading:

https://www.uniteamerica.org/articles/report-most-americans-votes-dont-matter-in-deciding-elections

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/does-high-voter-turnout-help-one-party

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/forcing-people-vote-doesnt-change-outcome

No one is going to open a restaurant where the target market is “people who don’t go to restaurants”.

???

When you open a restaurant, the only target market is people who don't go to your restaurant. Looking into how to expand your business to people who don't already go to restaurants is absolutely a valid line of inquiry that companies persue all the time. Maybe the reason they don't eat out because it's too expensive, and you can appeal to them with lower prices. Maybe the reason they don't eat out is because they don't know how good your food is, and you can address that with free samples. Maybe they have dietary restrictions and you can appeal to them by adding vegan or gluten free options. Restaurants, like any business, are constantly looking for ways to break into new sections of the market. So your analogy falls completely flat.

Look at, for example, Little Caesars which at least back when I was in school had cheap ass $5 pizzas, they tasted like shit but they were $5 so being a broke ass college student I ate there all the time when I might otherwise have not eaten out at all. And that's why they focused on keeping the price low instead of making it actually good. Because at $5, even groceries wouldn't be much cheaper.

Likewise, if a political party is uninterested in appealing to people who don't already vote for them, it must mean that they're satisfied with their current level of support. Which, considering the Dems lost the last election, doesn't exactly seem to be working. And what, do you think you'll have better luck trying, again, to appeal to "moderate" Republicans? Let me know how that goes, lol.

It's because 11.2 million people say one thing, and do another.

People who don't eat at restaurants at all are obviously not the same as people who don't eat at a restaurant that doesn't exist. You said you understood that concept but then spent the rest of your comment describing people who want to eat at restaurants.

People who don’t eat at restaurants at all are obviously not the same as people who don’t eat at a restaurant that doesn’t exist.

Legitimately don't understand this word salad.

You said you understood that concept but then spent the rest of your comment describing people who want to eat at restaurants.

Someone who doesn't currently eat at restaurants might start eating at them if the restaurants find a way to appeal to them. That's not a complicated concept.

If I'm vegan, and no restaurants in my area offer vegan options, then I am someone who doesn't eat at restaurants at all. If a restaurant opens up that does offer vegan options, or if an existing restaurant adds a vegan option, then I might start eating at restaurants. Do you not understand this concept?

Likewise, someone who doesn't vote might start voting if they're appealed to. This is equally uncomplicated.

I think a more interesting question would be, regardless of someone's priorities, why they don't vote.

No corporate donors and support dictate policy.

As an anarchist you people need to stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a "tankie" you've made it absolutely meaningless.

We got public healthcare in Canada through direct political action, respectfully there is room for both strategies.

BALLOT ISSUE 52936B:
Climate
-For
-Against

The GOP brand is practically solid gold. No matter how shitty their members keep being, the average American voter will still see the party as reasonable and worthy of power. Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states but ask a neolib about a past republican government and they will talk about them like they were the only voice of reason. Complete disregard for the fact all of them left beind a fucking mess in lock step with their parties destructive principles and policy.

if clearly motivated people don’t want to vote for you, it’s not an indication that they should lower their standards, it’s an indication that you should have standards to begin with

it’s cute how liberals here are so resilient to reality. people don’t care for slow, steady, painfully incremental progress (if even that) when every summer is so much hotter than the last one.

That’s not a lot of voters, and those voters aren’t evenly distributed amongst the country.