How does voting republican help anything? They are proud bigots, racists, rapists, pedophiles, and so much more. I understand being frustrated with the democrats for being bought and paid for, but getting in bed with republicans seems incredibly stupid.
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2026
-44 points (7.7% liked)
Asklemmy
55064 readers
319 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
I agree with everyone else here. What would voting republican accomplish? That's literally the opposite of what we want right now.
Unless you're just a troll and this is your poor attempt at rage bait?
It has to be that. I couldn't arrive at this solution after being hit by a bus made of pure tequila.
Even those theoretical infinite typewriter monkeys couldn't type something so profoundly stupid.
I'm not American, but I don't understand how voting for republican would slow down fascism. It would strengthen their position to get more votes, right?
You might be exploring ideas near accelerationism. No one is removed from material conditions. If you want to obstruct, it's best to read theory and then agitate locally.
Voting is better than not voting in my opinion. That being said, this is a topic I would not throw to the internet to help you decide. The way you have written your post you're opening yourself up to a lot of partisan replies from the good people of both sides that will probably not aid massively in your decision making process.
Good people on both sides? One side is full of Nazis, rapists, bigots. If someone is still happy to be on that side then they aren't good people.
I should have added /s.
Oh. Fair enough. My opinion of humanity just happens to be very low. And its hard to tell sometimes when people are being serious about things like that. And I am not motivated enough to dig through peoples history to find out. π€·π»
I share your view on humanity. I'm glad you said something. Tone is tough to transport online.
Not voting is how we ended up in the dumpster fire we are in now.
E: words
This reads as if you heard the lies Holocaust Harris supporters were spewing at leftists back in 2024, took them at their word, and thought the fabricated position was a good thing.
Voting obstructionist is valid. Turning in a blank protest ballot is valid. Accelerationism is not valid.
One of the main arguments against voting is that many people are simply too stupid or uneducated to be entrusted with the power to help choose a government. We have compulsory voting in Australia and I support that, but I'm ok with some people being donkeys.
Should I vote Republican to slow down full blown let it all hang out fascism because I don't want to vote Democrat?
- Evolution means choosing the better option in each case to invoke slow but important beneficial change
- Harm reduction is a great short-term strategy
- There's absolutely no reason to ever vote the elitist racist party of kiddy-diddlers
- If you're feeling like not voting, or voting in a way that harms people for no gain ever, then you may be a victim of manipulation by the conservatives so you don't vote against them. They're good at this.
Questions asking whether someone should vote in a way that causes harm can sound like a trolling question. I'm sorry if other respondents treat it as such.
Pay more attention to smaller more local elections. There's less "politics" around them and they usually have more of an impact on your day to day life
Not my problem
My take, if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain, simple as that.
Why?
Why should voting status be the be all and end all of who gets their grievances taken seriously?
It isnβt the end all and be all, it is the first step. If you donβt take the opportunity given to you to address your grievances, why should you expect others to do it for you?
I would posit that for many in Europe and America voting has not once addressed a single major grievance. What would you say of those who do not vote as it has never proven a real avenue for systemic change in the West and instead organise outside the system? Do they have the right to have their grievances heard?
I donβt accept the premise that voting has never led to change.
You can not accept it all you please and yet under the western capitalist system it remains true.
[citation needed]
Womenβs suffrage, the abolition of (chattel) slavery (as the Americans Thirteenth Amendment explicitly preserved involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime, laying the basis for coerced prison labour and the modern prison-industrial complex), the eight-hour working day, the weekend, the dismantling of Jim Crow and legal segregation, the defeat of apartheid in South Africa, partial Irish independence from the British Empire, and universal local-government suffrage and civil rights for the Catholic and nationalist population of Northern Ireland and more. None of these things were voted into existence but won through struggle. Voting under liberal democracy has not once been a real driver of meaningful systemic change.
You're citing examples of other forms of redress, not disproving the effectiveness of voting. I never claimed voting was the only (or even the most effective) form of redress, only that it is one.
Don't bother responding, you have nothing of value to offer other than your absurd soapbox.
How about you name 1 (just one) systemic change won through voting under liberal democracy. (Oh wait you can't because it's never happened).
Are you under the impression that the only way things happen is by direct vote on the issue? Nearly everything you cite is a result of the elected officials in power. Put there by the voters.
you can't even name one, lmao. pathetic bluemaga. voting is bread and circus bro, keep telling yourself that you can eventually vote shit out with your wallet. meanwhile, we in the third world keep getting FUCKED by either of any possible party that gets elected in the bΓΌrgerreich because all of them represent the international bourgeoisie.
Nearly everything you cite is a result of the elected officials in power.
Not a single thing I cited did came into existence because people voted for them. They arose because the economic base required a particular political, legal and ideological superstructure to reproduce the prevailing class relations. Their abolition was likewise not the product of voting, but of massive class struggle outside the system: militant trade unions, abolitionists, suffragettes, the NAACP, the Black Panthers, the IRA, the ANC (Umkhonto weSizwe), and countless other organised movements that made the existing conditions impossible to maintain.
Are you under the impression that the only way things happen is by direct vote on the issue?
No. What I am βunder the impression ofβ is that voting under liberal democracy has not once provided a real avenue for systemic change. Using voting status as a gauge of whose political views should be taken seriously is therefore idiotic.
In history, we learn two things. Either you can work within the system by voting, pressuring the government to change its stance, or striking like the French. Or, you can spark a revolution to change the current order.
If you don't vote, you're being passive, like Humpty Dumpty, just looking at the world pass you by without making your mark.
If you donβt vote, youβre being passive
This simply does not follow. Would you call those who work within unions, direct action groups, etc. (avenues that have provably lead to real change while voting in the west never has) passive? Using voting as some grand gauge is immensely flawed (especially given the system in the west where voting is nothing but a spectacle that has no ability to provide systemic change and truly address the major grievances of the masses).
I would expect that people involved in unions and direct action groups to vote on top their other work. It's the smallest thing you can do, if you can't do that, why should I trust you to have done anything else?
Because as I posited at the beginning of this exchange many people have come to realise that in the west under the current liberal democratic system voting is nothing more than spectical that provides no real avenue for meaningful change. All that being said I am not against voting just that the idea of taking what is under the current system in the west a meaningless action as the be all and end all of who to take seriously is silly.