Voting for non evil is the way to go. By keeping to vote for the lesser evil, you get it to become more evil while keeping non evil out of power. This is how the system games you.

[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes! The problem is, non-evil is not currently on the menu. So I think one should limit the rate of evil increase by voting for the lesser evil.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The evil is sowing doubt in people voting. Representatives fail to represent sometimes, or even often. But not voting just means they don't represent you at all, and don't care that you exist when they represent you.

If people didn't show up and vote for their local officials, and state government officials.... They have sabotaged their city/county/state/country.

All of these representatives start somewhere. If we don't follow and support the local ones that are good, they never get a shot at being say a congresswoman who can break the majority of super majority and help move politics in whichever directions we want them.

(Cause guess where they come from if they aren't politicians moving up.... Either A. Rich or B. funded by the rich.)

[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago

Yes! This is a form of organization. Which I think is a requirement for getting a more progressive government.

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think depends on the voting system and the election. US has a really bad system with FPTP voting. In that case tactical voting should be used for governor and president but representatives should be voted by the heart to build up better support for third party candidates.

It's also very important to vote in primaries and and party national conventions because those votes affect national policies way more than the elections themselves.

US is very presidential heavy but voting in local elections really counts and allows third parties to slowly build up enough support to create a hung parliament where voting system concessions can be made.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I like to think of it in a "market" way. By voting there is a signal into the market, that their is a demand for a certain political direction. So "stocks" with that profile increase in value. This might be individual politicians, specific laws, parties, or general ideology/values.

Politicians want their portfolio to be attractive, so they get more votes. As a result they will adjust their portfolio of political positions accordingly.

If you vote "tactically" you send a false signal into the market. So instead of getting more politicians to represent the ideas you like, you reinforce them in the ideas you don't like, as that had more buy signals. On the flip side if you send your sell signal, by removing a formally loyal vote from them, you can show them that their portfolio has gotten lopsided.

The difficulty is to think these things longer term. It is not just this election cycle, but 8 years, 12 years maybe even 20 years ahead. The way media and politicians like to represent elections got more and more pointed towards just this single one being the one and only. This is not just a problem in the US, but also countries without FPTP. Also the reporting got less about the specific policies and more about the how and who, turning it into a show of game of thrones, rather than a fight for the best ideas.

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

That's all true, by voting for minor parties you do entice the established parties to grab some of their policies. This does not address the fact that in FPTP a fractured ideology loses because of the spoiler effect. If you get 5 parties with 10% vote share. Dems on 20% and Republicans on 30% it's a Republican win even though their ideology doesn't resonate with 70% of voters.

You need tactical voting to get the majority of seats in this case also and in a situation where everyone would vote tactically against Republicans they will be pro voter reform since it'll reduce the power of a united right wing.

[–] Roopappy@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You are 100% correct.

Look at OPs meme and ask the obvious question: "Why is this moving to the right, and not to the left? Aren't both options equally possible?"

The answer is that it moves to the side that wins elections.

"Why is the right winning elections" is the much much better question to ask. In the meantime, do everything you can to move the center in the other direction one step at a time, and that doesn't come about by losing elections while standing on principle.

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

That's what I've always thought, it feels like the dems instead of compromising on ideology they should look for policies that benefit the rural Americans that feel increasingly excluded from the society happening in cities. Just throw them farming subsidies for small to mid sized farms, benefits for undeveloped land, agricultural loans for the energy transition to help them conform to new climate regulations.

Then maybe even throw in benefits for rural fire departments and so on are all democrat ideology policies. When the right becomes unelectable people move left.