I often see people say that the majority of America is against Trump. How did he come to be democratically elected if the majority are against him? I know technically he didn't get the majority of votes, he got just under 50%, but if all the non-voters cared enough, they could have stopped him from becoming president. I know Kamala Harris wasn't the best choice either; I know it sucks that there are only two viable options in an election, but that's the way it is. You have to make the best of a bad situation and participate in the election to prevent the fascist takeover.
When I point out that the majority could have prevented this, I get told a lot of Americans didn't vote, as if that absolves them. That means the majority either voted for Trump or didn't care enough to prevent this. If the majority were against him and gave enough of a fuck about what happens to their country, they'd have voted to prevent this.
You don't get to refrain from participating and then say you aren't responsible for the outcome. Is this the reason so many university students refuse to study? They think if they don't study, it makes them not responsible for the outcome of the exam? When I was in university, I heard a lot of people complain that they weren't ready for the exam because they didn't study, seemingly oblivious that that was a choice they made. Now people tell me a lot of Americans didn't vote with that same attitude, as if CHOOSING not to vote was somehow beyond their control and not their responsibility
I posted this in another thread but it belongs here too, because we need to exterminate this kind of thinking (blaming voters):
From here: https://vger.to/lemmy.world/comment/20970769
I agree completely with this person's criticisms of the system except for: No. I don't “must” do anything, and neither does any other voter.
If the Grim Reaper comes for you and says you can only live if you beat him at a game of Monopoly, you COULD explain to him how it's a terrible game. You could give him the history of how it was blatantly stolen from another game maker who originally created it as a satire of Capitalism, and how there's no skill involved, and whoever is lucky enough to land on the best resources first will inevitably win, but, that won't keep you alive.
You're playing the game whether you like it or not, and if you refuse to take your turn, it doesn't end or even stall the game, it just lets the other team win more.
See this is where the fallacy lay. You think you are arguing with me about strategic voting, or at least you are presenting it that way. You aren't. You are arguing with voters, all of them as a set, about your idea of how votes should be used, vote a vote represents, and what "strategic" really means. And thats were this entirely falls apart. And when those voters don't accept your premises as a set, your strategy falls apart.
The game isn't a game of one player versus the system, and if your strategy doesn't adapt when scaled, its not a good strategy. The strategy of "strategic voting" (which I hate the description, because its by no means strategic to employ strategies which operate directly against your purported outcomes) falls apart when you scale the game to any more than one player.
You need to accept the fact that while you, a single voter, accept the premises of what a vote is, how it should be used, and what it means to be "strategic", voters do not accept these premises or agree with you, as evidenced by their behavior. And because no one beyond the people use this strategy as a cudgel agree with them in terms of their premises, the strategy when employed does actual material damage to the alleged outcomes of those espousing it.
Those making the argument around strategic voting are constantly trying to act smart like they've got some kind of logical or moral upper hand, but they understand not either the morality of what they are doing, or the basics of game theory well enough to understand the damage they are doing.
I don't see what that has to do with what I said.
I'm saying more people should vote for who they think is best. Perhaps it's arrogance, and it's definitely not based on logic, but I think most people want what I want, but just didn't put in the effort to make it heard.
If you don't think more people should vote, what are you suggesting, that less people vote?