The fundamental principal of “democracy” requires that “The voters are always right”.
Any argument that the voters themselves are wrong is an indictment of democracy itself. It is a suggestion that We The People are incapable of governing ourselves, and require the external mandate of a benevolent dictator.
You can argue that a candidate failed to appeal to the voters. You can argue that the voting system failed to accurately reflect voter sentiment. You can argue that third parties unduly influenced the voters. You can point out the paradox of Trump being worse for Palestine than Harris would have been. But in a democracy, the voters are the source of truth. Laying blame on the voters requires rejection of the very idea of democracy.
To extend your metaphor, you want to go out to the movies with a bunch of friends. You and most of the group want to watch Oppenheimer. But most of the people who want Oppenheimer would rather just download it and watch it at home. We would only go to the theater for candy and soda and popcorn. Knowing that we aren’t going to show up without all three, you vetoed two of them, and called us selfish assholes for wanting what we want. Now you’re complaining that the people who did show up selected Barbie, and you’re trying to blame us, even as you ignore that you’re the reason why we didn’t bother to go out.
If Palestine is getting bombed no matter what happens, the only voters who are coming out are the ones who want Palestine bombed.
You and most of the group want to watch Oppenheimer. But most of the people who want Oppenheimer would rather just download it and watch it at home. We would only go to the theater for candy and soda and popcorn. Knowing that we aren’t going to show up without all three, you vetoed two of them, and called us selfish assholes for wanting what we want. Now you’re complaining that the people who did show up selected Barbie, and you’re trying to blame us, even as you ignore that you’re the reason why we didn’t bother to go out.
Any argument that the voters themselves are wrong is an indictment of democracy itself.
That’s a lot of words you seem to be putting in my mouth there friend. These aren’t mutually exclusive ideas. I can blame voters for not showing up to the polls and still see the value in a democratic government.
If Palestine is getting bombed no matter what happens, the only voters who are coming out are the ones who want Palestine bombed.
And I thought I had the hot take, holy shit. This is simultaneously an argument to disenfranchise ourselves from the democratic process AND the assumption that those who did participate in the electoral process, regardless of their actual beliefs, are automatically pro-genocide. I’m actually astounded that this is your argument. This is a greater rejection of democracy than anything I said. It’s insane.
Just because we didn’t vote for your shade of fascism doesn’t mean we didn’t show up. The whole get in line and comply is a thing of the past, candidates can either earn our vote or can fuck off.
If a genocide isn’t your red line anything you say after that isnt irrelevant or significant
That’s a lot of words you seem to be putting in my mouth there friend
Nah, I don’t think it is your intention to say these things. I think that you didn’t consider what you were actually saying when you tried to lay the blame on the voters instead of the candidate.
My point is that just because action was taken by the voters does not mean fault for that action rests with the voters. Here, the candidate’s advocacy for genocidal actions is the cause for her failure to win election.
This is simultaneously an argument to disenfranchise ourselves from the democratic process
That’s a common error: Abstention is not disenfranchisement. The voter is not capable of disenfranchising themselves. Disenfranchisement is a concept that can only be imposed on the voter against their will.
Demanding the voters select from two genocidal candidates is disenfranchisement: the only democratic choice remaining is abstention.
The fundamental principal of “democracy” requires that “The voters are always right”.
Any argument that the voters themselves are wrong is an indictment of democracy itself. It is a suggestion that We The People are incapable of governing ourselves, and require the external mandate of a benevolent dictator.
You can argue that a candidate failed to appeal to the voters. You can argue that the voting system failed to accurately reflect voter sentiment. You can argue that third parties unduly influenced the voters. You can point out the paradox of Trump being worse for Palestine than Harris would have been. But in a democracy, the voters are the source of truth. Laying blame on the voters requires rejection of the very idea of democracy.
To extend your metaphor, you want to go out to the movies with a bunch of friends. You and most of the group want to watch Oppenheimer. But most of the people who want Oppenheimer would rather just download it and watch it at home. We would only go to the theater for candy and soda and popcorn. Knowing that we aren’t going to show up without all three, you vetoed two of them, and called us selfish assholes for wanting what we want. Now you’re complaining that the people who did show up selected Barbie, and you’re trying to blame us, even as you ignore that you’re the reason why we didn’t bother to go out.
If Palestine is getting bombed no matter what happens, the only voters who are coming out are the ones who want Palestine bombed.
That’s a lot of words you seem to be putting in my mouth there friend. These aren’t mutually exclusive ideas. I can blame voters for not showing up to the polls and still see the value in a democratic government.
And I thought I had the hot take, holy shit. This is simultaneously an argument to disenfranchise ourselves from the democratic process AND the assumption that those who did participate in the electoral process, regardless of their actual beliefs, are automatically pro-genocide. I’m actually astounded that this is your argument. This is a greater rejection of democracy than anything I said. It’s insane.
Just because we didn’t vote for your shade of fascism doesn’t mean we didn’t show up. The whole get in line and comply is a thing of the past, candidates can either earn our vote or can fuck off.
If a genocide isn’t your red line anything you say after that isnt irrelevant or significant
Nah, I don’t think it is your intention to say these things. I think that you didn’t consider what you were actually saying when you tried to lay the blame on the voters instead of the candidate.
My point is that just because action was taken by the voters does not mean fault for that action rests with the voters. Here, the candidate’s advocacy for genocidal actions is the cause for her failure to win election.
That’s a common error: Abstention is not disenfranchisement. The voter is not capable of disenfranchising themselves. Disenfranchisement is a concept that can only be imposed on the voter against their will.
Demanding the voters select from two genocidal candidates is disenfranchisement: the only democratic choice remaining is abstention.