No Stupid Questions

I know people who voted neither candidate because Trump was horrible and Harris was pro-choice. Single-issue voters are the death of democracy. Full stop.

Since no one seems to be taking OP's question seriously, I'll take a stab at this. There are a variety of reasons.

Some people feel that voting is offering material support to a specific candidate or system, and they simply cannot bring themselves to do so given the horrors that that person or system is either supporting or failing to condemn.

Others may feel that strategically withholding their vote as a punishment may motivate democrats to take these types of issues more seriously in the future.

Or they may feel that their vote is more impactful in magnifying the voice and power of third parties who offer more meaningful solutions to end the killing, even if they won't win.

Others still may believe that Trump's incompetence will accelerate the end of America imperialism and lead to a better global political situation sometime in the future.

Finally, some people feel that voting won't matter at all and is a distraction from efforts to directly slow or stop the war machine.

I don't personally endorse any of these viewpoints, but some are relatively serious positions and others are not, in my opinion.

A lot of people did in fact set aside Gaza until Trump was stopped. As for those that didn't, they should have listened to Bernie Sanders. I did months ago and went all-in on Dem support. There were multiple times when I wrote up an angry post about US support of Israel and then didn't post it because I didn't want to turn a voter into a non-voter or worse a Trump supporter.

I understand their position of never rewarding ethnic cleansing and war crimes though. They chose to make sure the Dems know they would never "settle" for the illegal killing of civilians. The support for Israel made it especially hard for Arab Americans to vote Dem. It's difficult to support a party that has been in power during the whole conflict yet gives unconditional support for the internationally condemned murder of Arabs.

I'm sure a lot also felt disenfranchised by the bipartisan protest suppression and condemnation. Even in Dem states peaceful protesters were punished, and sometimes pro-Israeli protesters who attacked got away with it. Then there was the whole "vote with us or else" pressure that went on for months. Dissenters like the "uncommitted" voters were insulted by the party that wanted their unconditional support.

So it's not like it's completely insane. But as Sanders points out that position only makes things worse and has done so.

They believe it because that’s what people have been told to believe.

It should be glaringly obvious that trump’s implied policy that he will let Israel “finish the job” is far worse than the dems poor attempts at negotiating cease-fires or any other moderation on Israel’s aggression.

All the propaganda has focused on the democrat (in)action regarding Israel. Zero on trump’s plans.

That’s what the propaganda machine has been pushing.

Before I start let me note that in the end this particular group of people didn't affect the election. Harris is on the way to losing all swing states. Her failure is much deeper than Gaza policy. Blaming anti-genocide voters for this is just copium.

With that out of the way, you can divide people with this position into two groups: Arab Americans and everyone else. Arab Americans are people who are feeling the genocide firsthand. So, obviously, they tried to appeal to the Harris campaign and get them to move from Biden's position on the topic. The result: They were either ignored or antagonized by Harris. That led to the abandon Harris campaign in Michigan and elsewhere. Harris considered those people acceptable casualties in her failure of a campaign, and so they were burnt out and the momentum behind the Uncommitted movement and others turned from "let's save our Palestinian brothers" to "fuck us and Palestine (because let's face it, that's basically what Harris was saying)? Then fuck you too". Harris thew them under the bus and was thrown under the bus in turn. Maybe not very logical, but a very predictable reaction. Harris treated Arab Americans with just that much contempt, and then she and her enablers had the gall to tell the people attending a funeral every other day to "shut up and vote for her".

Now as for everyone else, it's a more simple instance of taking a stand against a politician for doing something you cannot accept. Now there is a pragmatic idea here that if you allow the DNC to get away with this they'll think supporting genocide actually wins elections, or that their electorate are such pussies that it doesn't matter what they think. Add in the goal of pressuring Harris to drop that policy that was important at the start of the Harris campaign and of course the idea of not wanting to vote for genocide and this was the result.

Of course it's not all 100% logical, but there is logic here beyond "omg bad guy I no vote".

The arguments against voting in the USA sound similar to the trolley problem

Some people wouldnt choose to be the reason of the death of one person even if doing nothing causes the death of multiple people

Russian bots mostly, but also privileged people who think that a Trump presidency won't affect them

It's the trolley problem. You see a trolley about to kill 5 people. You can pull a lever (vote) and make the trolley only kill 1. In this case, that 1 person is also in the lineup of 5. This distinction makes it obvious the only option is to pull the lever (vote).

Non voters are just as responsible for the loss of democracy. They are not a single bit better than any MAGA even if they like to claim they are. They chose fascism over democracy

Those are people who are unable or unwilling to see the forest for the trees.

Steelman:

The US is currently a fascist, imperialist state. It has brutalized the global south, indigenous people, and POCs generally since its founding and will continue to do so unless the status quo is disrupted and changed significantly.

The Democratic party supports the same militaristic policies and the same neoliberal economic system that the Republicans do. The primary difference between the parties are various social issues that may make life somewhat better or worse for US citizens, but will never address the core problems of fascism, imperialism, and capitalism. Both parties support and protect the status quo. This status quo only benefits the bourgeois class and rich white people and harms literally hundreds of millions of others around the world.

The Democratic party is the only one of the two major parties that the Left has any degree of leverage over since the Democrats want the Left to vote for them. So, organizing to essentially boycott the Democratic party is a powerful method of protest that could effect real policy change. It is possibly the only effective method of protest left since the US police & surveilance state is cracking down on protests and the Left has no chance protesting violently against the most powerful military the world has ever seen.

The only way to make that threat matter to the Democratic party is to follow through if the demands aren't met, even - or especially - if it means a second Trump term.

The liberal establishment has ignored and abandoned the working class for decades while dangling the carrot of milktoast social democratic reforms that rarely come to pass, but they blame the same people they abandoned for not energetically voting for them. They say it is a moral imperative to vote for them, but they are incapable of bettering the lives of working class people.

Strawman:

It would hurt my feelings too much to vote for COPmala Harm-us. Plus, Trump would let Putin annex Ukraine. Also, I'd risk touching grass if I went outside to participate in bourgeois electoralism. Gross.

Reality:

You can, and should, do more than one thing. Voting for Kamala is effectively playing defense against outright, full-throated fascism a la Mussolini even if you'd still consider the US fascist - it is clearly worse under Republicans. So vote, play defense, AND organize to raise class consciousness, provide mutual aid, protest when possible, and contribute to socialist causes. Letting Trump win would be a bad move. But, ultimately it is not the Left's fault that he won. He won the popular vole and the electoral college vote by a large margin - larger than all third party socialist/socialist-adjacent candidates' votes combined.

Because if it wasn't Gaza, it would have been another excuse to not lift a lazy goddamned finger and still delude themselves into feeling "morally superior"while sitting on their fat mediocre asses at home.

Before Harris, they also leaned heavily on the "Sleepy Joe" bullshit and "two old white men up for election, who cares". Once the old "Sleepy Joe" element was removed from the equation, they had to find a way to keep their goddamned stubbornly lazy and ignorant narrative intact.

Now that the election is over, most of these "concerned and outraged" deadweight assholes will never think about Gaza and the plight of its' people again. And they will keep on feeling smug about themselves.

If you think there was a genuine argument to not vote for Harris over Gaza war crimes, you were amongst those successfully manipulated by Russia. That argument was entirely of America’s enemies’ making as a means to get Trump elected.

Honestly for a portion of the ones here online, I don't think they actually care that much about Gaza except as a convenient tool to attack Americans. It's academic to them. I don't expect it'll stop once Trump is in, they'll just switch to criticizing Americans overall. They're mostly leftist agitators, and I honestly think they hate moderate progressives the most, since we're trying to improve capitalism which makes it harder to undermine and destroy.

For people that actually do care, it's a personal, emotional argument about not being able to feel good about it, which I understand. It's a sort of trolley problem. If they don't vote, they kinda just walk away and the trolley runs over a bunch of people, but they don't have to watch and bear a sense of personal responsibility at that emotional level for being a part of it. It doesn't actually benefit Gaza, but there's only so much they could really do anyway.

People are tired of voting for the lesser evil. So now big evil won, and the idea is that that will teach little evil to stop being at all evil.

On a more serious note, I think for a lot of people Gaza was the drop that spilled the glass rather than THE reason they didn't support Harris.

It doesn't have to make sense for people to convince themselves to do it. It will certainly lead to worse outcomes for gaza

If your morals disregard the probable outcomes and is more focused on normative rules you could make some arguments but that kind of purity won't save a single starving child in gaza

Edit: spelling

its funny, because literally the next post after yours was this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/07/trump-blank-check-netanyahu-war-iran-panetta

My own argument to these people has been that I'd prefer they go out and cast their (wasted) votes for a third party, rather than simply stay home. A lot of Lemmy disagrees with me on that, focusing on the (true) realization that their third parties won't get elected.

In this election's current aftermath, much of the blame has been stating that voters were just lazy or unmotivated. The only thing this message encourages is to repeat more rallies, make more promises by demographics and region so people know to get out and vote.

If you vote third party, it sends a message that you are motivated to vote, but you are not pleased with the current messages of the party. That results in a very different change of action.

Unfortunately, this whole practice is extremely long-term-focused. Many people in this election have been desperate for short-term solutions, like the Ukraine/Gaza wars. Ideally, this kind of reaction would have started in 2016/2020 - but third-party votes have been miniscule in those elections too.

Chatgpt translation of a french politician's analysis on the matter :

Think of voting this way:

Signing your name to a candidate/psrty and what they’ve done/signaled they will do.

A lot of people can’t stomach a candidate who has been courting the neocons and softening their previous mildly progressive stances from the last time dems had a primary and the progressives were showing up in numbers. Everyone got in line and the debates were about M4A, erasing federally held student debt, raising the minimum wage, etc. Sanders single handedly dragged the party to the center (technically more “left” than they were) in 2016/2020 and the dems responded by po’mouthing like they cared about those issues, but then circled the wagons and kicked those voters to the curb.

The party has shown over and over again that they don’t give a shit about working class people, those of us that want real change. They want to maintain the status quo. Which is progressively more hostile capitalism.

Signing your name to that constant move rightward is unthinkable for some. And understandably so.

And that’s before we even discuss the ongoing genocide in Gaza funded and armed by the US. While this administrations representatives in the UN and in any official capacity constantly run defense for the genocide.

Plenty of people could not fathom putting their name on that tragedy.

None of this means that republicans aren’t fuckin neofascist shits. But…how many times have the voters left of the dems been told to eat shit and vote blue because the other guy is worse? WHILE CONSTANTLY COURTING THE RIGHTWING VOTERS WHO MAY HAVE FINALLY GOTTEN SICK OF IT?! Kamala literally said she would be different from Biden by having a Republican in her cabinet. WHAT.

With everything going on, this party said, “yeah, fuck all that. Let’s see if we can grab anyone to the right of us.”

I got sidetracked, but this is the thing. It’s not binary, because geopolitics isn’t binary. The worlds issues aren’t binary. But a binary choice is all we’re given to make.

Just…what. And neither of those two choices was actually going to solve the problems. One was maintaining the problems while one was the problems plus more problems. That’s not an attractive choice.

We all get that trump is much worse. But everyone else needs to understand how sickening that shitty choice was for anyone with a conscience about what’s going on in Gaza, what’s going on with their neighbors. Signing on for more of the same was completely unthinkable for some. That has to be understandable if we are ever going to change things.

We’ve been on the road we’re being forced down now as long as I’ve been around. And the road just keeps going forward. The dems’ proposal is “maintain the course.” The republicans’ was “mash the gas.”

Some people couldn’t stomach going any further down this road. That’s not making a choice to mash the gas. Because the world is not binary.

But you and everyone else posing similar questions is saying “how could you vote for mashing the gas by not wanting to continue down this road?? :(“

Because the standard for Democrats is perfectionism, but the standard for Republicans is "That's just Trump being Trump."

In other words, they didn't think it through, they got suckered by propaganda.

If you have a particular ideological hang up revolving around the difference between explicit and implicit consent to be governed...

You can view yourself as morally correct for not voting for anyone whom you do not fully support.

Thus you have not given explicit consent to either candidate, or the voting system itself.

Its basically 'Don't blame me, I didn't vote, therefore I am not responsible.'

Its the trolley problem, but you just walk away from both tracks and the lever, and then claim that you did not consciously act to cause any harm, therefore you are guiltless.

...

Unfortunately by this logic it does also mean that you give implicit consent to literally everything your government does if you do not speak out against everything it does that you don't like, or take some explicit action to countermand.

...

It's an extremely sophomoric, cowardly and irresponsible stance to take in a situation like this, but there is an underlying logic to it... its just that this logic is ridiculous and absurd.

The arguments are as stupid as you guessed.

These are naive emotional people who are dumb as fuck. I know so many in my life and it's like arguying with a brick wall.

Children still believe we live in a black and white world, democrats are in power now, genocide is happening, they will not vote for them. The concept that both will finance the genocide but another will be much worse is not something they can understand.

You have others that want to intentionally punish democrats for not doing anything. Great in the meantime, Trump will provide a full carte blanche to Nettanyahu in the middle east, he will continue what he's doing, annex everything without any limits. They were partying in Israel after Trump won.

A third group wants the system to break down because they think if you're a post collapse society, they will be able to build their utopia.

Yes as dumb idiots living in la la land.

Naïve/entitled people fail to grasp the concept of compromise.

The best argument I came across went something like this: if we show the Democratic Party that we’ll accept something as horrible as genocide as long as the Republicans are worse, then we’ve completely surrendered our agency as voters.

Powerful statement. It was the most coherent, rational, well thought out explanation I’d seen. It didn’t come off as a condescending lecture on morality, either. I actually considered their argument for a couple days, but ultimately, I decided it wasn’t strong enough to risk another Trump administration.

Don't worry. Trump won. You'll hear a whole lot less about Gaza and genocide now.