https://twitter.com/andreyp_p/status/1009583511659995137?s=21
Thread:
https://twitter.com/andreyp_p/status/888689109450997762?s=21
4 Likes
It’s not “inconvenience themselves”.
Firstly, they are faced with the most powerful, sophisticated and pervasive media propaganda apparatus on the planet, much of it directed at suppressing working class consciousness and advocacy.
Secondly, they live in an economic system in which taking the time required to vote is often impossible or expensive.
Third, and probably most importantly: even if they overcome the first two points, they have nothing to vote for. If I lived in West Virginia, I would not vote for Joe Manchin under any circumstances. Ditto if I were a Floridian faced with Debbie Wasserman Shultz.
And, even in the districts with less obviously evil representatives, the fact remains that a Democratic administration achieves nothing but a more sophisticated descent into serfdom and the maintenance of eternal war.
Is it really so surprising that after seeing that result again and again and again, people may decide that is no longer worth the exertion and expense just so the party could spit in their faces all over again?
Sure, there is a hypothetical possibility that, if huge numbers of people devoted decades to grassroots campaigning, they may have some slim chance of overcoming the corrupt party machine and forcing gradual reform.
The history of the party over the last century strongly argues against that, however. You can see what they did to McGovern and Jesse Jackson and all the rest of the attempted reformers.
—
Voter suppression isn’t just about actually preventing people from voting. It also works by discouraging the vote. Everything that is done to increase the exertion required to vote reduces turnout, as does everything that is done to reduce interest in or enthusiasm for the outcome.
I know you understand the concept of stochastic terrorism; spread the hate and wait for the lone wolves.
Voter suppression also works on a stochastic basis. No matter how virtuous or otherwise the people involved, a suppressed electorate is always going to have lower turnout (in the long term) than one that isn’t. Criticising the electorate for that fact is victim-blaming, IMO.
4 Likes
Manufacturing consent.
4 Likes
Thread.
3 Likes
1 Like
5 Likes
3 Likes
It’s not victim blaming to say that the past century of voting history in the United States shows that half the people that vote for president won’t vote in any other election, and that there is no matter of pointing to the disadvantages placed on the poor that excuses 3/4 of the eligible voters missing the midterm elections.
Nothing you say even comes close to addressing that ridiculous gulf in who can vote and who does vote.
And this is a problem in recorded history in the United States, not a modern invention - if anything the modern era shows a huge surge in political activism compared to the previous decades.
1 Like
2 Likes
2 Likes
3 Likes
4 Likes
Nothing political, just a nifty old photo:
4 Likes
3 Likes