Do you vote?

[jullia]

I assume most of you don't, but i'm curious.

[Rudolf]

No i don't vote, i dont' see the point. I also don't see the point in advocating not voting. A referendum, however, is a bit different. That to me is more of a case-by-case basis.


I've tried coming up with scenarios previously where it'd be useful to vote but alas it still tends to be useless. A favourite is voting to stop fascists winning an election but it doesn't work as even if the fash lost out on votes they'd still be a formidable force as they'd need loads of cash, activists, media contacts, business contacts etc to seriously contend an election anyway even if they lose it, thus implying they'd need to be defeated outside parliament.

[jullia]

I agree referendum are pretty different. I enjoy direct democracy.

[Zoop]

Voting, generally, is pretty useless for obvious reasons. I don't however, think that abstention is necessarily the right thing to do every time, under all circumstances. Generally speaking though, it is.

Abstaining from voting is also pretty useless if you don't do anything else other than abstain.

[The Idler]

The ballot is one of the most powerful hard-won weapons the working-class have.
If you vote in a trade union ballot, then generally you ought to be exercising your right to vote in a general election.
Serious credible socialist parties contest elections where they take place.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I live in one of the most marginal constituencies in the country so yes I voted in the last general election, although I didn't vote in 2010 and I can't see a situation where i'd have voted Labour in 2005, 2001, or 1997. I normally vote in local elections because you have a greater chance of electing someone from the Labour grassroots (or Green grassroots) who has a greater appreciation of the issues facing local working people. I will vote in the EU referendum, though i'm totally undecided at the moment. Will probably depend on the strength of argument put forward by the left for whichever side.

[Guardia Rossa]

I only vote in the most communist party, that is, the least revisionist ones.
All good, really revolutionary parties aren't registered.

However, at the end, when the two remaining centrist neo-liberals every year struggle to get elected (And rich), I don't, I whiten my vote (Wich is like not voting at all)

But It is worth for nothing more than showing support to communist parties, If all communists voted on the communist parties I'm sure the communists wouldn't be laughed by the population as "Tons of extremist shitty micro-parties"

And if these parties unified, oh my.... Recruit the anarchists, start the revolution... Kabooooom.

[ComradeAllende]

2016 is going to be my first presidential election (that I can vote in), so I'm undecided. I'm definitely not voting for Hillary or Trump (or whoever the "frontrunners" are), and I'm probably leaning towards the Green Party (at least if Ralph Nader wins). Otherwise, I might just not vote (or cast a ballot for one of the left's micro-factions).

By the way, I have to admit that I'm tired of the "lesser-of-two-evil" strategy used to encourage radicals to vote for "mainstream" platforms. One could make the argument that (in America's case) a Trump Presidency would be the worst-case scenario, but all the other ones are barely any better (Ted Cruz used to scare me when he was the frontrunner, and Scott Walker kinda annoys me now).

[lutraphile]

Yes. I'll vote in the primary for Sanders and I might even vote for Clinton/Biden in the general if he loses the nomination. If nothing else, US elections are a referendum on social issues. There is a reasonable chance abortion will be made illegal if the next US President is a Republican because they will have the chance to appoint multiple justices in all likelihood, as well as make an effort to curb LGBT progress and deport all immigrants.

And for the above post, I think Cruz and his theocratic capitalism are more terrifying than Trump. Not least because he is much less likely to self destruct.

[Cliff Paul]

There is a reasonable chance abortion will be made illegal if the next US President is a Republican because they will have the chance to appoint multiple justices in all likelihood, as well as make an effort to curb LGBT progress and deport all immigrants.

Yawn, this is what the Democrats want you to believe. For the last couple of elections they've basically run on a campaign of vote for us because the other guy is worse. In fact their entire outreach to youth voters is now basically "we will disappoint you but republicans are gonna do scary shit if you don't vote for us". But really who wins the presidential election has very little effect on public policy.

First off, Cruz has no chance of winning. The evangelical shrills like Cruz, Santorum, Huckabee, etc. will never win the nomination because quite frankly they don't represent the goals and values of the people who control the republican party. NY Magazine has a great article on why the Republican elite hates Trump which is applicable here:


By design or (more likely) by accident, Trump has inhabited a ripe ideological niche. Both parties contain ranges of opinions within them. And both are run by elites who have more socially liberal and economically conservative views than their own voters. (There are plenty of anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-same-sex-marriage Democrats not represented by their leaders.) But the tension between base and elite runs deeper in the Republican Party. Conservative leaders tend to care very little about conservative social policy, or even disagree with it altogether. Conservatives care a great deal about cutting the top tax rate, deregulating the financial industry, and, ideally, reducing spending on social insurance — proposals that have virtually no authentic following among the rank and file....

So the prospect of a Trump nomination justifiably terrifies Republicans. But unlike the prospect of nominating a Scott Walker — or a more extreme version, like Ted Cruz — the risk does not carry any proportionate reward. Bush, Walker, and Rubio all agree on the same basic domestic goals. If elected, they will try to enact the party’s agenda on taxes, regulation, and social spending.


Trump dissents from the field not just in his political strategy but in his overall orientation. While he shares the Republicans’ disdain for President Obama, he has not committed himself to a Republican program. Jeb Bush has frantically tried to question his commitment to the party by pointing out Trump’s prior support for single-payer health care and a large tax on the wealthy. These positions horrify the Republican Establishment. (A recent Wall Street Journal editorial (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-worst-argument-1440368198) cites Trump’s ability to defy the opinions of the donor class as a major reason to oppose him.) But few Republican voters find them actually disqualifying. The danger he poses is the prospect of harnessing the social passions of the conservative base and channeling them into (from the party’s point of view) the wrong agenda.
Trump poses a dire threat to the party: If elected, he could not be trusted to work for the Republican agenda. The party elite will oppose Trump with everything it has.


So yeh, there's little reason to be concerned about the the Republican presidential candidate outlawing abortion or dramatically set back lgbt rights (and the issue of deportations is really ridiculous since the stats point to Obama being far harder on "illegals" than Bush ever was). Local politicians, who tend to have some detachment from the party higher ups can have an effect on these issues - which is why you see some states passing laws that end up closing down abortion clinics and stuff but the Republican presidential candidate will most certainly always be a Romney, Bush, McCain type who's primary concerns are implementing the core Republican economic policies.

[Synergy]

It's kind of pointless but I still like voting for socialist candidates. I'm gonna fill that circle in so hard that even the mailman will know who I voted for. Just you watch!

[Rafiq]

Voting apart the tactical prerogatives of an organized political organization (and the qualifications for this must be set higher than the Diadochi of the 4th international hold it) is basically just to make yourself feel good. In which case, no one cares what you do - but don't pretend like it makes a difference.

[lutraphile]

But really who wins the presidential election has very little effect on public policy.
The US President DOES have the power to appoint supreme court justices, who will probably revisit Roe v Wade in the near future, and will have jurisdiction over what could be the undoing of anti-LGBT laws.

There is a very real difference in GOP and Dem social policy, even if economic differences are largely just rhetoric.

[RedWorker]

Attacks on immigrants, LGBTQ+ and abortion rights are a very real problem, independent of the question on how to view Democrats, whether as a "lesser evil".

Of course, Sanders has made anti-immigrant and nationalist remarks:


At this point, Sanders abruptly cuts off Klein, saying, “Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.” “Really?” Klein responds, apparently taken aback. “Of course,” Sanders replies. “That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States… It would make everybody in America poorer.”


Sanders continues: “You’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that… What right-wing people in this country would love is an open border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour. That would be great for them… You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those [American] kids?”

[RedWorker]

The branding of progressive policy as 'bourgeois', or opposition to bourgeois policy from a conservative, nationalist or otherwise right-wing point of view, and promoting nationalist policy from a pseudo-workers' point of view is distinctly reactionary - even considering merely this respect, Sanders' quoted statements are outrightly intolerable. If it is false that the bourgeoisie supports such an 'open borders' policy, his statements have a reactionary core embedded in them - otherwise they are simply reactionary.

[RedWorker]

And, of course, the Obama administration has overseen mass deportation, worse than the last Republican:

https://www.wsws.org/asset/9303ce21-cf2b-4306-a9c7-ccb1ba98de3A/deportations2-01.png?rendition=image480

[PhoenixAsh]

Added a poll

Seems to me the quickest way to determine whether or not RevLeft votes or not...and how


Anyways.

I vote but I vote invalid. This means your vote is counted towards the total votes but is seen as a clear protest against the procedure. A no show is simply seen as political apathy. We either have electronic voting machines which have a button for this or if we vote on ballots. In that case I usually draw a bunny....(I don't know why I draw a bunny...and I am not particularly good in them) or write a small poem.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Every election I vote for the baron Vladimir Harkonnen, unless I am prevented by my laziness (which happens a lot). Oddly the baron never seems to win although his policies are clearly superior to any of the major parties (and the congress building could clearly support his weight even without suspensor devices judging by some of the former ministers).


The US President DOES have the power to appoint supreme court justices, who will probably revisit Roe v Wade in the near future, and will have jurisdiction over what could be the undoing of anti-LGBT laws.

There is a very real difference in GOP and Dem social policy, even if economic differences are largely just rhetoric.

M-hm, so why is the right to an abortion being systematically dismantled in America, under a Democrat president and many Democrat governors? In fact why would the Democrat Party even care about upholding some semblance of abortion rights when the party tops knows people like you are going to vote for a sack of potatoes if there's a donkey logo on it and they can wave a picture of some Republican going "look, look, at least the sack of potatoes isn't Trump/Cruz/Fiorina/whatever"?

[lutraphile]

M-hm, so why is the right to an abortion being systematically dismantled in America, under a Democrat president and many Democrat governors? In fact why would the Democrat Party even care about upholding some semblance of abortion rights when the party tops knows people like you are going to vote for a sack of potatoes if there's a donkey logo on it and they can wave a picture of some Republican going "look, look, at least the sack of potatoes isn't Trump/Cruz/Fiorina/whatever"?
Almost no Democrats are in favor of limiting abortion rights. These restrictions are being put in place by Republican governors and state legislatures.

I get that voting for the Democratic party is pretty useless. Just a bit less useless than not voting at all. But when people see 50% turnout the news headlines and the Facebook posts don't talk about the failures of bourgeois politics, they talk about voter apathy. Nothing is accomplished except to take a step back on social issues where the parties have real differences- gay marriage was legalized in my state because of the new A.G. who was elected by about 100 votes. If I didn't live in a swing state I'd vote Green or for one of the 20 socialist parties that occasionally get on ballots, but I do so I might as well do the one thing I can with that. To me, making whatever small improvements you can within the system is better than having no effect at all and patting yourself on the back about ideological purity.

[Synergy]

(I don't know why I draw a bunny...and I am not particularly good in them) or write a small poem.

Drawing a hammer and sickle is pretty easy.



In fact why would the Democrat Party even care about upholding some semblance of abortion rights when the party tops knows people like you are going to vote for a sack of potatoes if there's a donkey logo on it and they can wave a picture of some Republican going "look, look, at least the sack of potatoes isn't Trump/Cruz/Fiorina/whatever"?

I'm pretty sure the sack of potatoes would taste better than any of the republican candidates. Probably should take off the donkey sticker before chowing down though.

[Gotya]

I go back and forth on it; however, if you don't vote someone else will. You're political by omission or commission.

[redblackveg]

Added a poll

Seems to me the quickest way to determine whether or not RevLeft votes or not...and how


Anyways.

I vote but I vote invalid. This means your vote is counted towards the total votes but is seen as a clear protest against the procedure. A no show is simply seen as political apathy. We either have electronic voting machines which have a button for this or if we vote on ballots. In that case I usually draw a bunny....(I don't know why I draw a bunny...and I am not particularly good in them) or write a small poem.

I like to write-in my name in the locals, but have certainly been debating the primaries/general election. When I tell folks I'm considering not voting, because I want to show my disapproval of the 'system', I am immediately chided; even when I explain my abstinence would be a meaningful lack of action, rather than apathy/laziness, they say "Well you really should vote..."

I think your method suits my tastes. A bunny, eh? Perhaps I'll hop onto that trend. :laugh:

[Comrade Jacob]

If we voet layboor, teh soshialist repubic will cum soonerr - Gooby
Gooby u dumfuk - Dolan

[OGG]

I will probably never vote.

[Eagnor]

Yes, if there is a communist party always must be the voice of socialism. Of course parliament is not the way of socialism but there must be socialist option.

[Major K.]

I look at voting from more a psychological viewpoint. It's a way to ritualize complicity in the public to make them feel part of the decisions being made.

If you don't vote, you cast a shadow over everyone who does. You'll be called lazy or apathetic, and this is the effect of your political act of not voting. Think about Russia right now. Very few people vote in elections, and most not for Putin's party. The people know this, and this fact helps maintain an atmosphere of workers unrest and solidarity. The general public KNOW the power systems is corrupt and doesn't represent their will, and this makes a difference on a psychological level and helps to promote a revolutionary solidarity in the workers.

What has happened in what are somewhat ironically called neoliberal democracies is quite unfortunate, though completely understandable -- voting as a method of reasonable decision making has become instead a tool for totalitarianism and the manufacturing of a false sense of participation and consent in the people.

To quote Konstantin Pobedonostsev from almost 150 years ago in his essay "On Parliamentary Democracy":


The new Democracy now aspires to universal suffrage - a fatal error, and one of the most remarkable in the history of mankind. By this means, the political power so passionately demanded by Democracy would be shattered into a number of infinitesimal bits, of which each citizen acquires a single one. What will he do with it, then? how will he employ it? In the result it has undoubtedly been shown that in the attainment of this aim Democracy violates its sacred formula of "Freedom indissolubly joined with Equality." It is shown that this apparently equal distribution of "freedom" among all involves the total destruction of equality. Each vote, representing an inconsiderable fragment of power, by itself signifies nothing; an aggregation of votes alone has a relative value… In a Democracy, the real rulers are the dexterous manipulators of votes, with their henchmen, the mechanics who so skillfully operate the hidden springs which move the puppets in the arena of democratic elections...


Contrary to popular opinion, not voting is a by far more effective way of political expression in such a system (and btw, there are loads of more useful political acts one can do than that too. Not voting just serves as a good starting point). By doing so, you deny the ruling class the very thing they put these ridiculous shows on to acquire: your consent.

After all, to quote Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord,


You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

You can't hold a population hostage for long -- eventually they will overthrow you... unless, that is, you can convince them that they are the ones really calling the shots.

-K

[A.J.]

I'm just about to go to the polling station now and vote in a council by-election.


I may decide to post the result on here at a later date.........

[N. Senada]

I'm only vote when my organization is capable of present an indipendent list whit his program and his symbol.

But i don't think the individual vote of the single militant is important, most important is the relationship between the organization and the electoral moment.
So far, the elections are still an important focus in propaganda.

[VCrakeV]

Wow. I'm surprised that "Yes, always" is the most popular option. Anyway, I picked sometimes. Kill me, I pick the lesser of two (or rather three) evils. Voting is easy and takes no time. I'd rather vote for the lesser of evils (NDP in my case) then not vote and do nothing else. That said, I'm thinking of doing something more revolutionary after the election (either in response to bad outcome or in preparation for next term); perhaps something simple, like spreading communist opinion through media, forming media/school groups, contacting small parties, etc.

[Bala Perdida]

The only reason 'no never' doesn't have more votes is because the people who would choose that actually never vote.

[ComradeAllende]

I just turned 18, so I don't have a history of voting per se. Nevertheless, I probably will vote next year; thankfully I live in a blue state, so I can vote my heart out instead of siding with those wimpy Democrats...

[Bala Perdida]

After seeing this guy on the news I kinda wanna vote for him just to see him in the debate

http://postnewsgroup.com/blog/2015/09/17/alpha-leo-running-hip-hop-candidate-president/

Votings still pointless though so it'll be left to the imagination

[Abdullah Tshabal]

I only voted once so far (I'm 23 and recently swapped countries) for the 2014 elections in ZA

[Burzhuin]

I decide to vote or not to vote based on many factors. I think majority of participants do the same. But I ALWAYS use the election campaign to explain our, communists, ideas and goals.

[Wolfy]

Still too young, but i get to vote for Mimi Soltysik in 2016!