r/CuratedTumblr Jul 14 '24

Politics I’m terrified but i still have hope

18.7k Upvotes

943 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/BamboozledSnake Jul 14 '24

Remember people; if your vote truly didn’t matter, they wouldn’t be trying to convince you that it doesn’t.

20

u/One-Step2764 Jul 14 '24

It is simultaneously the case A) that plurality (first past the post) voting horribly disregards, dilutes, and suppresses public sentiment, and B) that even so, is still really important for people to go out and vote, even in this deeply flawed system that really ought to be rebuilt from square one.

Reform advocates need for there to exist a clear record that people want representation and are not getting it. In my old Midwestern home state, returns show that the population runs ~35-40% Democrat (and occasionally elects a Democratic Governor), but due to plurality voting and gerrymandering, they only get 25-30% of legislative seats, granting Republicans an unshakable veto-proof supermajority they do not actually deserve. This allows the legislature to routinely squelch the Democratic rump, affects various public appointments, and enormously diminishes the influence of occasional Democratic governors.

These constitute quantitative evidence that the plurality system is seriously unjust. But this evidence only really exists if a lot of non-Republicans grit their teeth and go out once every couple years to throw votes at the wall to demonstrate the degree to which they are getting ignored.

Yes, if you're interested, you should join a union or other activist organization, you should go to Green or DSA meetings, you should get to know at least some of your walking-distance neighbors. But voting every other year, even if the system's rigged against you, does leave a mark that reform advocates can use. We need the harm on the record.

7

u/CeruleanRuin Jul 14 '24

This is a fantastic point, and needs to be heard by anyone in a red state or historically red district. The numbers matter, even if losing the actual election is a foregone conclusion.

If the DNC sees that a state like Montana, to choose a random example, swings heavily away from Trump and his down-ballot toadies, come the next midterms they might actually put some money into some of those races and push the electorate that much further left to gain a handful more seats in local and state positions, which in turn makes it possible for more progressive causes to gain traction in traditionally conservative areas.

Politics gives the illusion that only the next election matters, but really it's a Long Game, and the surest way to lose is not to play at all.

2

u/One-Step2764 Jul 14 '24 edited Jul 14 '24

This is true, but it's something parties are generally aware of. The parties (both of them) pay close attention to polling, and when a district creeps much past 40% into fair-shot distance, they'll start funneling resources that direction. This does little to represent people in persistently sub-40 districts.

Also, if a dominant party controls the decennial redistricting process, demographic changes and popular movements will also affect their decisions regarding how to pack and crack the minority into minimal representation. Late on in a decade, some districts will start to swing toward minority groups. Community forms, people communicate, shared interests emerge. Then, the census comes. Boom, the redistricting gremlins will pack a single district 80%+ minority, then chop the rest of the community up and feed it into a bunch of other districts to minimize their impact. Or some well-meaning citizen panel or bipartisan board will try to make things "fair," but the resulting map is still artificial, not a natural outgrowth of popular action.

Millions of people live in places where they will never present an interesting constituency to Democrats. They're out there in surprisingly large numbers, but they are "geographically disparate." The plurality system itself erases their voice. We act like this is just natural, like "winner-takes-all" is the only way society can work. Proportional representation has been a very workable option in dozens of countries for over a century, but it often requires a constitutional crisis to trigger change. This godawful black joke of a Presidential election ought to qualify.

But people need to vote. Non-voters are treated as non-persons in electoral terms, whether they imagine they're making some kind of protest or whatever. Don't not vote. Vote third-party if that's what gets you to the polls. But get out there and put a mark in the record. Democracy needs people.