I think protesting is stupid if you can vote

Post Reply New Topic

What leads you to believe that most protestors don't also vote?

Your observation that less than 30% of people under 26 vote is not relevant here. Surely you know more than enough about statistics to know that you can't deduce the behavior of protesters from trends among the majority of young people in general, most of whom aren't protesters either?

Other factors being equal, I would expect that people who participate in protests are more likely to vote than people who don't participate in protests. (There are exceptions, of course. There do exist people who participate in protests but refuse to vote, which I think is counterproductive. But, in my experience at least, such people are not the majority among political activists.)


Here in the U.S.A., people vote for people, not policies. We don't have the kind of parliamentary system that various other countries have, where people vote for parties rather than for individual candidates.

Here in the U.S.A., a person's vote for a candidate does not necessarily mean that the voter agrees with all of the candidate's views, or with any specific one of the candidate's views. It just means that, overall, the voter regards the candidate as the least of the evils.

So a vote, all by itself, doesn't tell politicians very much about what their constituents actually want. To the latter end, politicians need other signals. These other signals include opinion polls, trends on social media (or, in the old days, newspaper letters-to-the-editor columns), lobbyists, and, yes, protesters. A large protest lets politicians know that there is an issue that many people (many of whom likely also do vote) feel strongly about.


It is far less "anti-democratic" than the quieter kinds of lobbying that represent small wealthy interest groups. If anything, grassroots protest movements are a needed counterbalance to the quiet lobbyists.


Some protest movements are more effective than others, and I agree that the "Black Lives Matter" movement seems to have made some big mistakes.

But these mistakes do not justify a throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater attitude toward protest movements in general.


Other factors being equal, a protest movement dominated by out-of-towners will be less effective than than a protest movement dominated by locals, for obvious reasons. Out-of-towners may be able to help, but should not dominate.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 14 Apr 2023, 1:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.

This is interesting. Could you please refer us to a good online summary of Krugman's critique of Ricardo?

Almost.

I'm saying that voting in general elections is one way one can exert influence, but that it's not the only way.

If you involve yourself in other ways (for example, engaging with primaries/internal party voting) you might end up exerting more influence than if your only influence comes from the general election ballot box.

Power imbalance.

The "Frankfurt School of Economics" is Marxian.

The global center of neoliberal capitalist thought is the "Vienna School of Economics".

So it all boils down to a battle between Frankfurters and Wieners.

Sadly, no one cares what the Bolognese have to say.

Because what they say is...baloney!

I think it's just a result of society being too big. The moment you protest or take any action (apart from voting) to effect political change, you're trying to grab more than your equal democratic share of power. But if you confine yourself to voting, your power to make a difference is woefully tiny. Both options suck.

The Chicago School and Hoover Institute (Stanford) could be added to the Neoliberal Capitalist thought center list, although Chile and Britain were arguably the earliest test beds. It's also gone global and mainstream since the '70s.

There's no such thing as an actual equal share though. Some people don't involve themselves in any way, their share is zero. Some people are office holders, their share is quite significant.

Is that inconsistent with my point?

Democracy is garbage.

I can objectively prove this. For instance lets say there are 3 species which are all related, Trolls Goblins and Elves. But they are all in the same city. The elves want to live in high tech trees with transparent wood, The goblins want the city to look like 1920's nyc, The trolls prefer something futuristic yet natural looking. No matter who wins the vote, 2/3's of the population is going to be stuck with a result they didn't ask for.

You would instead of democracy need a ruler to create 2 new cities and have each one live in that city to maximize the happiness of society. The mayor of that city would have insufficient power to create 2 new cities so you would need someone with more power.

So...a march, a rally, a letter to a representative, or a petition signature is a power grab that knocks "fairness" into the dump? Am I not allowed, in any way beyond the ballot box, to express my preferences, desires, hopes, or needs to the people in office?

Many people, including me, believe that speaking up about issues that matter to them to be a crucial and healthy part of a democracy; in the U.S., it's called the First Amendment.

No, it's a criticism of that logic. It's poor logic even if people buy into it.

They're whiners and nothing more. If they want more say they can put in the work like the people they complain about.