Comment on If you didn't vote, the current state of things is partially your fault

the_q@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I posted this in another thread but it belongs here too, because we need to exterminate this kind of thinking (blaming voters):

  Firstly, and I want to be very clear, this exact line of thinking is, in my view, one of the biggest political self-sabotage of the last decade. The “strategic voting” sermon is a toxic meme: it flatters people into thinking they’re doing game theory, when what they’re actually doing is laundering fear, cynicism, and party discipline into moral obligation.

  In a FPtP voting system you must vote strategically. You must vote against the party you like least.

  No. I don’t “must” do anything, and neither does any other voter. A vote is not a hostage note. It’s not a loyalty oath. It’s a signal of preference, and people will use it that way whether or not you approve.

  And the biggest problem is: the whole argument relies on a fantasy version of voters. It assumes (1) everyone agrees on who is “viable,” (2) everyone shares the same ranking of “least bad,” and (3) everyone will coordinate on the same “strategic” choice. That’s not how human beings behave. People have different risk tolerances, different values, different lines they won’t cross, and different beliefs about what’s possible. You can’t brute-force a coordination problem by scolding individuals.

  Worse: preaching “strategic voting” is self-fulfilling sabotage. The constant message of “don’t vote for who you want, vote for who you’re allowed to want” depresses enthusiasm, trains people to expect disappointment as the price of participation, and gives a hall pass to candidates to believe they no longer need to work for your vote. If you’re trying to help a candidate or party win, telling potential supporters that their real preferences are irresponsible is a great way to push them into disengagement, protest votes, or staying home, ALL of which are perfectly viable options.

  What the “must vote strategically” story really does: it shifts responsibility away from candidates and parties to earn votes, and puts the onus on voters to simply accept less bad, which loses elections. It turns elections into a blame game where voters are treated like malfunctioning parts that need to be corrected, and it handed the country to fascism.

  And I noticed what you did, trying to claim this as Russian propaganda. Again, deeply toxic, but I wouldn’t expect less from someone espousing the strategy that handed the country to Fascism.

  source

  • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I agree completely with this person’s criticisms of the system except for: No. I don’t “must” do anything, and neither does any other voter.

    If the Grim Reaper comes for you and says you can only live if you beat him at a game of Monopoly, you COULD explain to him how it’s a terrible game. You could give him the history of how it was blatantly stolen from another game maker who originally created it as a satire of Capitalism, and how there’s no skill involved, and whoever is lucky enough to land on the best resources first will inevitably win, but, that won’t keep you alive.

    You’re playing the game whether you like it or not, and if you refuse to take your turn, it doesn’t end or even stall the game, it just lets the other team win more.

    source

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      You’re playing the game whether you like it or not, and if you refuse to take your turn, it doesn’t end or even stall the game, it just lets the other team win more.

      See this is where the fallacy lay. You think you are arguing with me about strategic voting, or at least you are presenting it that way. You aren’t. You are arguing with voters, all of them as a set, about your idea of how votes should be used, vote a vote represents, and what “strategic” really means. And thats were this entirely falls apart. And when those voters don’t accept your premises as a set, your strategy falls apart.

      The game isn’t a game of one player versus the system, and if your strategy doesn’t adapt when scaled, its not a good strategy. The strategy of “strategic voting” (which I hate the description, because its by no means strategic to employ strategies which operate directly against your purported outcomes) falls apart when you scale the game to any more than one player.

      You need to accept the fact that while you, a single voter, accept the premises of what a vote is, how it should be used, and what it means to be “strategic”, voters do not accept these premises or agree with you, as evidenced by their behavior. And because no one beyond the people use this strategy as a cudgel agree with them in terms of their premises, the strategy when employed does actual material damage to the alleged outcomes of those espousing it.

      Those making the argument around strategic voting are constantly trying to act smart like they’ve got some kind of logical or moral upper hand, but they understand not either the morality of what they are doing, or the basics of game theory well enough to understand the damage they are doing.

      source

      • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I don’t see what that has to do with what I said.

        I’m saying more people should vote for who they think is best. Perhaps it’s arrogance, and it’s definitely not based on logic, but I think most people want what I want, but just didn’t put in the effort to make it heard.

        If you don’t think more people should vote, what are you suggesting, that less people vote?

        source