I don’t know USA history very well at all, but was there really an election with a dramatically low voter turn out, which eventually triggered the civil war?
I just don’t understand why the sentiment seems to be that if you advocate/participate in more change than just voting, then you should not vote, and if you vote, then you cannot participate in change more than that. Like surely these things can happen in parallel? Try to enact real change, but also vote for the lesser evil until those changes actually take hold?
Ahh, I think I’ve been misunderstanding this side then. I thought it was along the lines of “don’t vote since both sides are bad, instead protest and riot, etc”, but it’s rather “vote for someone else”
I don’t know USA history very well at all, but was there really an election with a dramatically low voter turn out, which eventually triggered the civil war?
I just don’t understand why the sentiment seems to be that if you advocate/participate in more change than just voting, then you should not vote, and if you vote, then you cannot participate in change more than that. Like surely these things can happen in parallel? Try to enact real change, but also vote for the lesser evil until those changes actually take hold?
The US has more than two parties, you dont have to vote for genociders
Ahh, I think I’ve been misunderstanding this side then. I thought it was along the lines of “don’t vote since both sides are bad, instead protest and riot, etc”, but it’s rather “vote for someone else”
Not voting would also be better than voting for genociders