#the voter turnout better change

[warningsine]

PARIS (AP) — Voters across mainland France have been casting ballots Sunday in the first round of an exceptional parliamentary election that could put France’s government in the hands of nationalist, far-right parties for the first time since the Nazi era.

The outcome of the two-round election, which will wrap up July 7, could impact European financial markets, Western support for Ukraine, and how France’s nuclear arsenal and global military force are managed.

Many French voters are frustrated about inflation and economic concerns, as well as President Emmanuel Macron’s leadership, which they see as arrogant and out-of-touch with their lives. Marine Le Pen’s anti-immigration National Rally party has tapped and fueled that discontent, notably via online platforms like TikTok, and dominated all preelection opinion polls.

A new coalition on the left, the New Popular Front, is also posing a challenge to the pro-business Macron and his centrist alliance Together for the Republic.

There are 49.5 million registered voters who will choose 577 members of the National Assembly, France’s influential lower house of parliament, during the two-round voting.

Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s resurgent National Rally, cast her ballot in her party’s stronghold in northern France on Sunday.

Turnout at midday at the first round stood at 25.9 % according to interior ministry figures, which is higher from the 2022 legislative elections at this time of the day. It was 18.43% at midday two years ago.

After a blitz campaign marred by rising hate speech, voting began early in France’s overseas territories, and polling stations opened in mainland France at 8 a.m. (0600 GMT) Sunday. The first polling projections are expected at 8 p.m. (1800 GMT), when the final polling stations close, and early official results are expected later Sunday night.

The voting is taking place during the traditional first week of summer vacation in the country, and absentee ballot requests were at least five times higher than in the 2022 elections, according to figures from the interior ministry.

Voters who turned out in person at a Paris polling station on Sunday had issues from immigration to inflation and the rising cost of living on their minds as the country has grown more divided between the far right and far left blocs with a deeply unpopular and weakened president in the political center.

“People don’t like what has been happening,” said Cynthia Justine, a 44-year-old voter in Paris. “People feel they’ve lost a lot in recent years. People are angry. I am angry.”

She added that with “the rising hate speech,” it was necessary for people to express their frustrations with those holding and seeking power and cast their ballots.

“It is important for me because I am a woman and we haven’t always had the right to vote,” Justin said. “Because I am a Black woman, it’s even more important. A lot is at stake on this day.”

Pierre Leclaer, a 78-year-old retiree, said he cast his ballot for the simple reason of “trying to avoid the worst,” which for him is “a government that is from the far right, populist, not liberal and not very Republican.”

Macron called the early election after his party was trounced in the European Parliament election earlier in June by the National Rally, which has historic ties to racism and antisemitism and is hostile toward France’s Muslim community. It was an audacious gamble that French voters who were complacent about the European Union election would be jolted into turning out for moderate forces in a national election to keep the far right out of power.

Instead, preelection polls suggest that the National Rally is gaining support and has a chance at winning a parliamentary majority. In that scenario, Macron would be expected to name 28-year-old National Rally President Jordan Bardella as prime minister in an awkward power-sharing system known as “cohabitation.”

In the restive French Pacific territory of New Caledonia, polls already closed at 5 p.m. local time due to an 8 p.m.-to-6 a.m. curfew that authorities on the archipelago have extended until July 8.

Nine people died during a two-week-long unrest in New Caledonia, where the Indigenous Kanak people have long sought to break free from France, which first took the Pacific territory in 1853. Violence flared on May 13 in response to attempts by Macron’s government to amend the French Constitution and change voting lists in New Caledonia, which Kanaks feared would further marginalize them.

Voters in France’s other overseas territories from Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, Saint-Barthélemy, Saint-Martin, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyana, French Polynesia and those voting in offices opened by embassies and consular posts across the Americas cast their ballots on Saturday.

While Macron has said he won’t step down before his presidential term expires in 2027, cohabitation would weaken him at home and on the world stage.

The results of the first round will give a picture of overall voter sentiment, but not necessarily of the overall makeup of the next National Assembly. Predictions are extremely difficult because of the complicated voting system, and because parties will work between the two rounds to make alliances in some constituencies or pull out of others.

In the past such tactical maneuvers helped keep far-right candidates from power. But now support for Le Pen’s party has spread deep and wide.

Bardella, who has no governing experience, says he would use the powers of prime minister to stop Macron from continuing to supply long-range weapons to Ukraine for the war with Russia. His party has historical ties to Russia.

The party has also questioned the right to citizenship for people born in France, and wants to curtail the rights of French citizens with dual nationality. Critics say this undermines fundamental human rights and is a threat to France’s democratic ideals.

Meanwhile, huge public spending promises by the National Rally and especially the left-wing coalition have shaken markets and ignited worries about France’s heavy debt, already criticized by EU watchdogs.

[drdemonprince]

It’s true that America has one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the industrialized world, with only 62% of eligible adults turning up to the polls on a good year, and about 50% on a typical one. But if we really dive into the social science data, we can see that non-voters aren’t a bunch of nihilistic commie layabouts who’d prefer to die in a bridge collapse or of an untreated listeria infection than vote for someone who isn’t Vladimir Lenin. No, if we really study it carefully, we can see that the American electoral system has a series of unique features that easily account for why we find voting more cumbersome, confusing, and unrewarding than almost any other voters in the world.

Let’s take a look at the many reasons why Americans don’t vote:

1. We Have the Most Frequent Elections of Any Country

Most other democratic countries only hold major elections once every four or five years, with the occasional local election in between. This is in sharp contrast with the U.S., where we have some smattering of primaries, regional elections, state elections, ballot measures, midterm elections, and national elections basically every single year, often multiple times per year. We have elections more frequently than any other nation in the world — but just as swallowing mountains of vitamin C tablets doesn’t guarantee better health, voting more and harder hasn’t given us more democracy.

2. We Don’t Make Election Day a Holiday

The United States also does far less than most other democracies to facilitate its voters getting to the polls. In 22 countries, voting is legally mandated, and turnout is consequently very high; most countries instead make election day a national holiday, or hold elections on weekends. The United States, in contrast, typically holds elections on weekdays, during work hours, with minimal legal protections for employees whose only option to vote is on the clock.

3. We Make Registration as Hard as Possible

From Denmark, to Sweden, to Iceland, Belgium, and Iraq, all eligible voters in most democracies are automatically registered to vote upon reaching legal adulthood. Voting is typically regarded as a rite of passage one takes part in alongside their classmates and neighbors, made part of the natural flow of the country’s bureaucratic processes.

In the United States, in contrast, voter registration is a process that the individual must seek out — or more recently, be goaded into by their doctor. Here voting is not a communal event, it’s a personal choice, and failing to make the correct choice at the correct time can be penalized. In most other countries, there are no restrictions on when a voter can register, but in much of the United States, registering too early can mean you get stricken from the voter rolls by the time the election rolls around, and registering too late means you’re barred from voting at all.

4. We Make Voters Re-Register Far Too Often

In countries like Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands, voter registration updates automatically when a person moves. In the United State, any time a person changes addresses they must go out of their way to register to vote all over again. This policy disadvantages poorer and younger voters, who move frequently because of job and schooling changes, or landlords who have decided to farm black mold colonies in their kitchens.

Even if a voter does not change their address, in the United States it’s quite common for their registrations to be removed anyway— due to name changes, marriages, data breaches, or simply because the voter rolls from the previous election year have been purged to “prevent fraud” (read: eliminate Black, brown, poor, and left-leaning members from the electorate).

5. We Limit Access to Polling Places & Mail-in Ballots

In many countries, voters can show up to any number of polling places on election day, and showing identification is not always necessary. Here in the United States, the ability to vote is typically restricted to a single polling place. Voter ID laws have been used since before the Jim Crow era to make political participation more difficult for Black, brown, and impoverished voters, as well as for those for whom English is not their first language. Early and absentee voting options are also pretty firmly restricted. About a quarter of democracies worldwide rely on mail-in ballots to make voting more accessible for everyone; here, a mail-in ballot must be requested in advance.

All of these structural barriers help explain why just over 50% of non-voters in the United States are people of color, and a majority of non-voters have been repeatedly found to be impoverished and otherwise marginalized. But these populations don’t only feel excluded from the political process on a practical level: they also report feeling completely unrepresented by the available political options.

6. We Have the Longest, Most Expensive Campaign Seasons

Americans have some of the longest campaign seasons in the world, with Presidential elections lasting about 565 days on average. For reference, the UK’s campaign season is 139 days, Mexico’s is 147, and Canada’s is just 50. We also do not have publicly funded campaigns: our politicians rely upon donors almost entirely.

Because our elections are so frequent and our campaigns are so long and expensive, many American elected officials are in a nearly constant state of fundraising and campaigning. When you take into account the time devoted to organizing rallies, meeting with donors, courting lobbyists, knocking on doors, recording advertisements, and traveling the campaign trail, most federally elected politicians spend more time trying to win their seat than actually doing their jobs.

Imagine how much work you’d get done if you had to interview for your job every day. And now imagine that the person actually paying your wage didn’t want you to do that job at all:

7. Our Elected Officials Do Very Little

Elected officials who spend the majority of their hours campaigning and courting donors don’t have much time to get work done. Nor do they have much incentive to — in practice, their role is to represent the large corporations, weapons manufacturers, Silicon Valley start-ups, and investors who pay their bills, and serve as a stopgap when the public’s demands run afoul of those groups’ interests.

Perhaps that is why, as campaign seasons have gotten longer and more expensive and income inequality has grown more stark, our elected officials have become lean-out quiet quitters of historic proportions. The 118th Congress has so far been the least productive session on record, with only 82 laws having been passed in last two years out of the over 11,000 brought to the floor.

The Biden Administration has moved at a similarly glacial pace; aside from leaping for the phone when Israel calls requesting checking account transfers every two or three weeks, the executive-in-chief has done little but fumble at student loan relief and abortion protections, and bandied about banning TikTok.

The average age of American elected officials has been on a steady rise for some time now, with the obvious senility of figures like Biden, Mitch McConnell, and the late Diane Feinstein serving as the most obvious markers of the government’s stagnancy. Carting around a confused, ailing elderly person’s body around the halls of power like a decommissioned animatronic requires a depth of indifference to human suffering that few of us outside Washington can fathom. But more than that, it reflects a desperation for both parties to cling to what sources of influence and wealth they have. These aged figures are/were reliable simps for Blackstone, General Dynamics, Disney, and AIPAC, and their loyalty is worth far more than their cognitive capacity, or legislative productivity. Their job, in a very real sense, is to not do their job, and a beating-heart cadaver can do that just fine.

You can read the rest of the list for free (or have it narrated to you on the Substack app) at drdevonprice.substack.com!

[baronfulmen]

I keep seeing posts that are like "now that Biden is supporting war crimes you aren't going to still say to vote for him, right?" and for fucks sake how have you people still not grasped the most basic point of the "you need to vote" thing?

It's not about Biden being good. He's awful. All US presidents are awful and have supported various war crimes. Yes, even that one you liked. This is not now nor has it ever been about praising Biden (for most of the people I see on Tumblr; obviously there are plenty of people out there in the world that do like Biden, but you know what I mean).

We have a two party system, and it sucks. Not voting or voting third party accomplishes nothing. Voting for the least-bad option DOES accomplish something, and does not prevent you from working to improve the system in other ways in the meantime. Why do I only hear people talking about trying to change things in terms of the presidential election?

Acting like you're remaining "pure" by not voting for someone horrible is ridiculous. This fantasy that lower voter turnout will bring about some sort of magical change in policy is completely unfounded in reality. Get involved in local politics where third parties or fringe candidates have a chance! You CAN influence politics, but the presidential election is not where change happens.

And remember, even if we do change things for the better it's still going to be about voting for the lesser evil when it comes to the president. They're all bastards, but there is a VERY real difference between them - there's a huge list of very positive things that have come out of Biden's presidency which doesn't make Biden himself less of a monster but does illustrate why this matters.

[tomorrowusa]

Trump probably can't win the presidential election without North Carolina. 🤔💡

It would be difficult though not out of the question for Kamala Harris to win without Pennsylvania. But it would be close to impossible for Donald Trump to win without taking North Carolina.

If Trump loses North Carolina, it could be an early night — and curtains for GOP

Democrats hope that momentum determines the presidential winner and even changes the contours of election night. North Carolina polls close early, at 7:30 p.m. Moreover, state law allows processing of mail-in votes well before Election Day, making an early count possible. (Some states, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, cannot start processing until Election Day, which could result in delays of several days before a winner is determined.) Should Harris win North Carolina’s 16 electoral votes, Trump’s chances of victory diminish greatly. He would need a virtual sweep of other battleground states (and likely all of the blue-wall states).

A quick reminder that North Carolina was the state which gave Trump his narrowest victory in 2020. It was won in 2008 by Barack Obama. So we're not exactly talking Tennessee or Idaho here.

An early-evening victory in a state Democrats have not won for 16 years would reverberate through the country, potentially depressing GOP turnout in Western states and diminishing the appetite for stunts to refuse certification of results in states such as Arizona and Georgia (which would not be determinative if Harris holds the blue wall and wins North Carolina).

Republicans are more likely to vote on Election Day than Democrats who have adopted early voting in greater numbers than Republicans. So an early call for Harris-Walz in North Carolina on the night of the election would more likely depress Republican votes in the Western US.

One thing which may negatively affect Trump in the state is the awful Republican candidate for governor of North Carolina.

[T]he North Carolina governor’s race might have a “reverse coattails” effect. The Republican nominee, Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, is an extremist conspiracy nut, a “fount of social media conspiracy theories and vile proclamations about the LGBT community, Jews, and other minority group,” the Daily Beast noted this year. From Holocaust denial to thundering that “some folks need killing” to his support for an abortion ban from “zero weeks,” he symbolizes everything wrong with today’s MAGA Republican Party. Robinson’s Democratic opponent, Josh Stein, the state attorney general, has opened a 10-point lead. If Democrats tie Robinson (a Trump favorite) to Trump, voters might run from both. At the very least, Republicans could suffer a drop in turnout as disgusted North Carolinians simply stay home.

A better than average turnout of Dems in NC would help flip the state. If you live just over the border in deep red South Carolina or Tennessee then consider doing some volunteer work in North Carolina. It could have an impact which extends far beyond the Tar Heel State.

[pearwaldorf]

Thinking about the fatalism that has inevitably emerged after yesterday's events, and how angry it makes me. Nothing about Trump has changed a goddamn iota since somebody tried to kill him. He's still the same old shitstain who's intent on tearing down the rest of this country he didn't get to last time.

The best way to legally depress voter turnout is to make people feel like there's no point in voting. When people turn out in numbers, Democrats tend to win.

And there still is a fucking point. I know it doesn't really make as much news as it should, but a Biden administration has genuinely made people's lives better. None of it gets publicized well because it's not sexy, but not being able to report medical debt to credit bureaus? $35 insulin? Cracking down on robocalls? The climate stuff in the giant infrastructure bill? All of this is important quality of life shit.

Certainly nothing is at the level it should be, but some of us old farts have stories about how much worse it was before, and why we would absolutely not go back. And I'm real fucking sorry that change isn't happening at the rate any of us want, but it's not nothing.

In philosophy, there is a concept called Pascal's Wager, which says a rational person should believe in God because the rewards are amazing if God exists, and the losses are small if God doesnt.

Obviously voting still takes effort, but I think it's effort that won't be wasted regardless of the outcome. Now you know what to do for next time! You've learned a little about your local politicians! For the states where you have to vote in person, it's a little more inconvenient, but check if early voting is available in your area.

And if (god forbid) the worst happens, you still tried. You didn't take it as a given he would win. Brazil has mandatory voting, and despite having the button RIGHT FUCKING THERE between Bolsonaro and Lula, more people chose to opt out than do the thing that would have an actual effect. That's so fucked up.

I know that people get frustrated and vote for things that represent their feelings as opposed to actual rational consequences. And this literally kills people.

I don't think it's too much to expect people to put in a bit of time and effort into something that will yield such important results if it's successful. If you need help registering to vote or a ride to the polls, it is available.

[adhdasfuck]

Russian PsyOps

I recently became aware that a certain user might be Another Russian Operative trying to sway people into not voting or voting third party, this one even said to vote for a non-Trump republican candidate (imagine being any progressive person at all and advocating progressive voters vote for a conservative, that'll show em, NOT).

So I looked into the third party candidate this person endorses:

Jasmin Sherman

I went through a few of the pages on Jasmine's website and have concluded that they're totally fucking full of shit.

They want to keep the death penalty and offer the options of morphine overdose and FIRING SQUAD as the federal standard to make it "more efficient" instead of simply abolishing it like a true progressive, since there are so many cases of innocent people receiving this draconian punishment.

They also want to GET RID OF SSI. They want to replace it with UBI, but congress WOULD NOT pass UBI, and running on any platform that abolishes SSI for any reason at all is a huge FUCK NO! I'm on SSI and shit is hard enough already. What SSI needs is greater support from the government, for the asset limit to be changed drastically or gotten rid of, and for people who are on SSI to not feel like they CAN'T GET MARRIED OR THEY'LL LOSE THEIR BENEFITS. What we don't need is for SSI to be gotten rid of because "it's inefficient and ineffective" are you fucking KIDDING ME?

Also because their platform of UBI was mentioned on their page about abolishing SSI, I looked at their page for UBI and it's completely out of reach. They are advocating for us to implement a system NOT A SINGLE OTHER COUNTRY HAS PASSED. NONE OF THEM. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this would get out of the senate alive. They can't even pass the bills to expand SSI and increase the amount of money we receive a month to be higher than 30% of the fucking poverty line.

This is a much more minor problem but they have Minnesota misspelled as "Minisota" on the UBI page, which is such a small problem, but something that should have been noticed very quickly because the graph it is in is supposed to show legitimate data to uphold their UBI proposal.

In short: This person is not progressive, this person is paying lip service while acting as an obvious Spoiler (a spoiler is a third party candidate who pulls votes from one of the other major parties, this is how Bush won the first time). And Russian PsyOps are back on this website trying to encourage genuinely progressive people who don't know any better to vote for someone who Will Not Win because it "feels better" than voting for a democrat.

Sorry it has to be this way, but take it from me, someone who is from Minnesota, with the highest voter turnout in the country, and also some of the most progressive policies. If you want a third party candidate to win, you START LOCAL, and build the presence of the party up from there. That's how we got an Independent for Governor in the late 90s and early 2000s. And you should participate in your local elections both in years like this and for the midterms! You have to Stay Involved for it to get better.

Conservatives worked for decades using that "frog in a pot that slowly heats up til it boils" method of introducing their fascism. We have have a great opportunity here to vote in progressive candidates who can help us push the needle back towards sanity and caring about people. It's going to take SUSTAINED EFFORT. We have to shout at our candidates to do the right thing, but the other side won't even listen, so this is the side we have to choose. Palestinians have LITERALLY SAID Harris is the better option here.

So go out and vote. Not just this election but every election. You CAN make change, it is going to be slow, but that time will pass anyways, so why not start working for a better future?

[trelldraws]

Are you sick of feeling helpless (and/or like you want to scream, pull your hair out, and set things or people on fire) every time you open the news? Would you like to replace, or at least supplement, your daily doomscroll with an activity that is actually, no bullshit, irl helpful to keeping Republicans out of office? Then sign up for this very easy, zero-human-interaction-required letter campaign:

-> votefwd.org <-

Vote Forward's primary goal is to increase voter turnout in general, but if you select one of their campaigns that's marked "political," most of those target specifically low-engagement left-leaning voters in swing districts, i.e. people in areas where the vote could go either way who rarely vote, but vote Democrat when they do.

(Is this meme too old? Don't tell me if this meme is too old.)

This includes places like Colorado's 3rd District, where in 2022 virulently racist right-wing clown Lauren Boebert won by only 546 votes. Reaching even a small number of people in these districts can make a real impact on who controls the House and Senate.

You can read Vote Forward's evidence about why letter-writing works, but also, if you've ever had your own mailbox or picked up your family's mail, you already know why it works: everybody digs out the small white envelopes with handwritten addresses, and throws away everything else. Curiosity about what someone would spend time handwriting to you in this day and age is a powerful force!

All you need is white envelopes, stamps, and access to a printer. Alternatively, if you have none of those things, they have a free letter kit program where they'll send you all the supplies.

-> How it works / what you'll do <-

TL;DR: sign up (you'll need to come up with the blurb you'll write on your letters, can just tweak and use one of their examples, free to change this anytime) -> choose a campaign (the default is general voter turnout, if you want to start with a political one click "Adopt a different campaign") -> download & print template letters -> handwrite your non-partisan message (ideally a short personal note that makes the connection between voting and real-world results!) -> handwrite recipient's address on the envelope (you don't include a return address, just a name + "Vote Forward") -> sit on the letters until October (they'll e-mail you with a reminder) -> send letters in early to mid-October, so they arrive when they're most relevant.

Do it! Yes, July has been a nonstop self-sabotage shitshow, but all that actually means is that more of us need to turn out and make an effort. Elections are won through organized action, voting works, write a letter! I guarantee you'll feel better for doing something besides being consumed with dread. (Even if your wrist strenuously protests writing by hand, like mine.)

[is-the-owl-video-cute]

Do you honestly, genuinely, and truly believe that anything regarding the genocide in Palestine will get better regardless of who's elected into office in November? I'm not trying to sound bitchy or rude, I'm genuinely wondering. There is not a single politician on the ticket that I trust to help. What is your plan?

Nope. No one on the ballot currently will result in a positive change for Palestine. That much is true and I accept that. I do not however accept that this means I must vote for a genocidal humanoid. I’m not casting anything but a throwaway vote for the presidential ballot this election, unless Biden is actually replaced with someone competent but he’s digging his heels in too hard for it to be likely. I’m going to vote blue on the other seats on this ticket so when trump inevitably wins he won’t get to do as much as he wants. It’s more important to have a blue Congress and senate this year because, hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if it’s actually trump v. Biden, trump is going to win this election and it’s not even going to be close. Even with trump lying and choosing the WORST possible vp that even his supporters largely despise, trump is going to landslide Biden because Biden has done nothing but lie, break promises, commit genocide, and now he can’t even form coherent thoughts or debate with the easiest to debate clown on the planet. Democrat voters see how Biden responds to genocide and they see how he endorses police force being used to brutalize protestors. Biden said nary a bad thing about the zionists throwing fireworks into encampments trying to hurt peaceful protestors, but he had plenty to say about the encampments. Voters see that, and he’s a fool to pull that in an election year. Very few democrat voters actually trust him enough to vote at all. Voter turnout is going to be at an all time low.

Trump is winning this election and I’ve made my peace with that. I’ve known how this was going to go for months now and Biden is just making it worse for himself. He’s evil, he’s incompetent, he’s arrogant, he’s a moron. Oh? That’s starting to sound familiar, isn’t it? Hard to tell which of them I was even describing and that’s the problem.

All I can say at this point is the next person with a sniper needs better aim and some body armor. And they may want to aim at someone other than trump to start off.

[gallifreyriver]

Why you NEED to vote!!

This is so serious. Do not withhold your vote. It's not going to send the message you think it is.

It never will. It will not be the 'devastating blow' or 'learning lesson' to the Democratic party as a whole- they won't learn a thing by you withholding your vote. It won't help Palestine- if anything it will make you complicit in whatever further harm comes to Palestinians when your "protest" results in Trump/the Republican Party winning the election, because they've already stated that they will back Israel no matter what.

Know what sends a better message than not voting? Voting for the other candidate, or voting "Uncommitted," in the primary.

So many of you are forgetting about the Primary!!

Currently there are two other notable* Democratic candidates (Dean Phillips & Marianne Williamson) and four notable* Third Party candidates (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chase Oliver, Jill Stein, & Cornel West). People have also been writing in Claudia De La Cruz. *In this context, notable means that a candidate appears on enough ballots to stand a chance to win a majority of the Electoral College, as according to Ballotpedia.

And let me tell you, even though only a few Democratic primaries have passed as of the writing of this post, their results already seem to be having the desired effect, because Biden started pushing harder for a ceasefire right after he lost 13% of the vote in the Michigan Primary to "Uncommitted."

Of course it's not perfect, but if 13% in one state could have even that much sway, imagine what could be accomplished on Super Tuesday* if everyone went out and did the same in their states? That's what could actually stand a chance at getting the Biden administration (and rest of the Democratic party) to scramble towards doing what we want. Withholding your vote won't do shit, I'm sorry. They only notice/care where the cast votes go- not votes that are absent. And unfun fact, Trump was elected by only about 25% of eligible voters. We got Trump because so many people (43%) DIDN'T vote in 2016. This is why turnout is such a big deal- your vote absolutely does matter. *Super Tuesday [March 5th] is the day where several [15] US states hold their primary election.

Need another reason? There are 468 seats up for election. All 435 seats in the House, and 33 seats in the Senate. That is huge.

Currently Republicans hold majority in the House. This is a chance to change that- to flip seats! We have the chance to tip the scales further away from fascism instead of further toward it- But we can only do that if people get out and VOTE. Vote in the primary to choose your candidate, and then vote again in November to try and secure a blue majority and actually get shit done.

Do not withhold your vote!

Withholding your vote isn't a rebellion, it's silencing your own voice. It's complicity in whatever bad thing happens when the bad people win. It's an active sabotage of the things you supposedly want.

And to those who think "Oh who cares if things get worse for us! People in Palestine are already suffering in unimaginably worse ways!" I need you to reflect, and realize that trying to punish yourself because you feel guilty that you're not suffering with them will not help them. It's not "solidarity." It's not heroic. I'm having trouble finding the right words, but to think it comes anywhere close is a slap in the face to those actually suffering. If anything it will only make their situation even worse if Trump wins. Again, the Republican party has already stated it's intentions to back Israel no matter what.

You need to make sure that your actions aren't just you trying to assuage your own guilt because you feel bad that you can't help more. And you need to make sure that you aren't holding these guilty feelings over the actual needs of Palestinians and that you're not speaking over them in your "activism."

I'll say again, Do not withhold your vote. Do not silence your voice.

We have a chance to make this better, but we can only do it if we all do the work- and voting is the bare minimum of said work.

So make sure to get out and vote in your primary!

[grace-williams-xo]

I wanna say, as this site gets more and more political over the coming months, that I am Australian and will not tell you who to vote for. I do not at all envy US voters choices.

The things I post/reblog don’t hide where my political affiliations lie, but as AOC once said (and I am surely paraphrasing) “there is no other country on earth where Biden and I would be in the same political party”.

This all applies to the UK election as well, which is next week!!! You can no longer register to vote for the July 4 general election, but if you are already registered then PLEASE VOTE.

Your vote matters, from the land of compulsory voting:

Australia is one of very few countries with enforced compulsory voting. (You can obviously leave your ballot blank, but the fact you have to go appear and collect a ballot makes most people vote). There are countless studies that show that mandatory voting decreases both conservatives and all extremists winning elections.

I am, unsurprisingly, a huge supporter of compulsory voting. If I could change any one thing in US politics right now, it would be compulsory voting and the end of voter suppression. That’s where my focus lies in US politics: in getting people to vote at all. As mentioned though, I recognise your huge voter suppression issues. I am so sorry, and so sad for you. You deserve better.

I believe in the good in humanity. It makes me so happy to know that the 2020 presidential election had the largest turnout of any election in history. Don’t let that trend die. Don’t be convinced your vote doesn’t matter.

One effect of compulsory voting in Australia is that, though it is somewhat lacking, we all learn about our political system from primary school age. We learn how to vote and register to vote in school. We also learn that not voting is equally as powerful as voting. Not voting is a deliberate and meaningful action. You have the right to make that choice, but do not make it believing that it absolves you from being responsible for the outcome of the election.

Your vote, whether you cast it or not, still matters. Please vote.

Also! There is much more on the ballot than just the president. The house, a third of the senate, and lots of local positions all matter just as much if not more. Vote for everything!!!

You can register or check your registration at vote.gov

[griseldagimpel]

Venty U.S. political post ahead:

I dislike the assertion that not voting is the same as a vote for Trump or that voting third-party is the same as a vote for Trump.

A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.

Not voting decreases the voting turnout, which has historically favored Republicans. Not voting also doesn't change the fact that either Harris or Trump will be president next, and these are absolutely not equal outcomes.

A vote for third-party is strategically dubious, in my opinion. It's better to vote for the most viable candidate that most closely aligns with your positions, since the risk of voting third-party is that you can end up with the candidate least aligned with your positions. (See Nader voters who felt Gore wouldn't be good enough on the environment in 2000; the result was Bush 2.0, who was terrible for the environment.)

But neither is the same as voting for Trump.

Now, with that said, please vote for Kamala Harris for president this election if you're able.

[baronfulmen]

It's only March and I am already losing patience with the "if you vote for Biden you're a bad person" bullshit

I am going to explain this one more time (lie, I will explain it like a hundred more times but probably more pissy each time)

The way the electoral college works, there is NO viable way for a third party candidate to win.

You could REPLACE one of the existing parties in theory, but more likely you would just change the party until you like it more.

This is done starting at the local level, which is also where third party candidates can actually win. Despite this most people totally ignore everything but the presidential election and then bitch about it.

You could fix our elections by working to eliminate gerrymandering and voter suppression and by fighting for ranked choice voting, but again that's not a thing that's going to happen all at once (or ever in an election year).

Biden is awful, duh. All US presidents have been awful. They have all committed war crimes and if hell were real there would be a special section just for US presidents. Yes even whichever one you think was okay, Carter or whoever.

Biden's administration has done a TON of good shit, alongside the bad. No I'm not saying the bad stuff was worth it, I'm just saying it is not all bad stuff which is important because Trump really is basically all bad shit. All of it. He's all the bad shit that comes with Biden AND so so so much more.

Not voting doesn't send a message, because voter turnout is already abysmal and so your protest non-vote is lost in a sea of apathetic non-votes and Republican generated lack of votes due to voter suppression.

Not voting doesn't somehow make you a more virtuous person, nor does voting for Biden make you a bad person even though he's a bad person. You have two options, Biden or Trump. That's it. Not voting is still making a choice, and that choice will STILL RESULT IN EITHER TRUMP OR BIDEN so you might as well be a fucking adult about it and acknowledge that one is less bad than the other.

There are some states that are so OVERWHELMINGLY certain to go to a particular candidate that it's harmless to vote third party, but I have frequently seen people on this site say that applies to them and then mention where they live and it's ABSOLUTELY not one of those places so I don't know what some of you are smoking. Florida, for christ's sake.

I get that a lot of you want to start the bloody revolution or whatever, but please understand that even if you're serious and actually plan on doing that there's no reason you can't ALSO vote.

This isn't that complicated. Grow up and vote for Biden, and be angry and bitter about it the whole time. Work towards change in ways that actually matter and have a chance of making a difference, instead of sitting back and smugly acting like doing nothing makes you a better person you fucking cowardly assholes.

[thearoacespark]

voting (a balanced take? hopefully)

disclaimer: I don’t usually do this. I’m still very young and learning about the world and this is all pretty surface level observation— but I wanted to try and say something anyways—it’s likely imperfect and there is probably nuance I’ve missed. Also, this is mostly geared towards my fellow USAmericans.

I have been guilty of sharing sentiment with “vote blue no matter who, VOTE VOTE” posts, and being gripped with a sense of fear and urgency like no other. I understand. Project 2025, the ideals of Trump’s platform (lots of the immigration ideas eerily close to Proposition 187…) are very scary.

But let’s slow down. Others have said if we’re voting out of fear and as if we have no other choice, then it’s no better than having no choice as all. I have to agree.

In my opinion, while emotion does push people to act and is a good motivator, I feel much better choosing on my own rather than being pressured or guilted by others.

After all, no one can truly force another to do something they don’t want to—but we can discuss, debate, and change minds.

Instead of saying it’s impossible, let’s consider a third party candidate, specifically one that is explicitly pro-Palestine. In my opinion, it’s tough, especially for these reasons:

- No matter how you look at it four months is a short period of time. We might have less than four months, some ballots are printed and solidified early, according to AOC’s Instagram Live Talk. (link: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9l41vgOAGj/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link)

- Many people have not heard of these third party candidates— I had not been familiar with Jill Stein or Claudia de la Cruz before today. Do many people know of the members of Congress who have already called for ceasefire? (https://workingfamilies.org/ceasefire-tracker/) Tumblr endorsements help and I appreciate the information on other platforms regardless, but what about people who are mostly offline?

- There’d need to be a robust and wide-spreading social media, news, TV and more campaign to get enough people informed in such a short time, much less get them on board and overcome the substantial opposition already faced by the pro-Palestine movement in general. Campaign managers need to be paid salaries. Transportation, advertising, food, gas… it costs a lot of money. A lot of people are already struggling financially and donating what they can— and donations to Gaza E-SIMs and evacuation funds help people right now. (By the way, plugging Operation Olive Branch: https://linktr.ee/opolivebranch)

- Even if they do get elected, it can’t be just the president— they will face extreme pushback, likely from all sides, and they need House and Congress and Court members on their side to make not only foreign policy shifts but also other systemic changes to society that are dearly needed.

For now, I’m voting blue because I think it’s our best shot at something better… but if someone has a detailed plan on how to turn a third-party candidate from improbable to possible that addresses these issues in concrete ways, then maybe the conversation can change. The time crunch, however, is extremely tough.

What now?

- Vote. Even if nothing about this post changes your opinion on the presidential election, I’d encourage you to vote, just for voter turnout and to exercise that political power! There are still nonpresedential and local elections that will directly impact your community. (https://www.usa.gov/confirm-voter-registration)

- Continue to advocate for causes you believe in and educate others, and learn about issues outside just the US.

- Being confident in the best action to take and trying to convince others to vote blue shouldn’t mean dismissing criticism of our current institutions and the current Democratic candidate, or attacking people who bring up these criticisms (of course, check for sources and records first!) These conversations should be ongoing.

- Try to fact-check everything you hear and dispel misinformation as much as possible!

- Continue to consider pushing alternative voting methods such as Ranked Choice Voting—I haven’t read into it enough to say more concrete details, but something has got to change 😭

- Share resources whenever you can, and take care of yourself and others :)

[unstatedmartini]

beloveds, please stop engaging with online leftists. half of them are bots and all of them are arguing in bad faith, and you don't need to use your platform to amplify their bullshit.

this election is about TURNOUT. this election is about getting the exhausted mom in rural Pennsylvania caring for three kids and aging parents who would vote blue if she could just figure out how to make time to get to the polls. It's about letting her know that we see her and we see her struggle and we value her voice. It's about asking her if there's anything we can do to help and not just between here and November.

I promise you these voters, the parents and the students and the seniors and the people worried about groceries and healthcare and human rights and climate change, all these voters who want to be hopeful but are so fucking TIRED and afraid and already operating beyond capacity every second of every day, I promise you they don't care that some human embodiment of a fart on TikTok wants to "burn it all down". These voters live here. Their families live here. They want to believe in a better, kinder future and the good news is that we can make that better, kinder future happen starting right now.

So next time you come across one of those posts, block the account and make something. Make a sign. Make a friendship bracelet. Make a donation. Make cookies and make a trip across the street to share them with your neighbor. Make a call. Make a choice to be disciplined in your hope and I promise, you will make a difference.

[robertreich]

The One Thing That Would Make Elections Better For Everyone 

Are you sick of the onslaught of negative political ads that air on your TV every election season?

The fear-mongering. The half-truths.

Believe it or not, there’s a simple reform we can enact to make elections more bearable for voters.

It’s called ranked choice voting, or RCV, and it could change our politics for the better.

When you head to the ballot box under ranked choice voting, instead of voting for just one candidate, you have the option to rank candidates in order of preference: first, second, third and so on.

So if you’re stuck between two preferred candidates for a position, you can spread your preferences out in hopes that one of them wins.

When ballots are counted, if none of the candidates gets an outright majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to their supporters’ second choice candidate.

This process continues until a candidate receives over 50% of the vote, and is declared the winner.

It’s also good for a whole host of other reasons.

Implementing RCV could have the added benefit of making our elections… well… nicer.

In a ranked choice voting system, candidates are less likely to engage in the kind of mudslinging we see every election season, because they’re not just trying to be a voter's first choice — they also want to be the second choice of voters who are backing their opponents.

This can motivate anyone running for office to be more inclusive and appeal to a broader range of voters — helping to connect people who don’t always agree on every issue.

RCV also allows us to exercise our right to vote without feeling like we’re compromising our beliefs or simply voting for the “lesser of two evils.” We can vote FOR the candidates we like the most, rather than voting AGAINST the candidates we like the least. RCV could also open the door to voters casting their ballots for more third-party candidates.

Even if your favorite candidate from your preferred party is not favored to win, that person could still be your first-choice — without you feeling like you are giving up your vote entirely. If your candidate doesn’t make it to the final round, your second or third choice could still end up winning in the final tally.  

Ranked choice voting can even change the kinds of people who run for office — for the better. Potential candidates wouldn’t have to avoid running for fear of splitting the vote or “spoiling” a close election — allowing for a potentially more diverse pool of candidates to run.

Look at Alaska, where voters used RCV to elect Mary Peltola to Congress — making her the first Alaskan Native and first woman to represent the state in the U.S. House.

Lastly, ranked choice voting saves everyone — you, me, elections officials — time and money.

There would no longer be runoffs, which can be costly and often have lower turnout — which means election results that are less likely to reflect the will of the public.

There’s a reason why RCV is starting to sweep the nation — it’s currently being used by 13 million voters across the country.

Ranked choice voting makes elections less painful, less expensive, and can help make our government more inclusive and responsive to what people actually want.

Maybe you can organize to make ranked choice voting a reality where you live.

[mariacallous]

A great deal has been written about the gender gap ever since it appeared in presidential elections in the 1980s. Since then, many elections have seen a clear difference in the way men and women vote—in general, women tend to vote more frequently for Democratic candidates and men for Republican candidates.

This year’s election puts the gender gap front and center for three reasons—one of the candidates could be the first woman president of the United States; the abortion issue has especially high salience for women and could increase their already high turnout; and the election in swing states is incredibly close.

The closeness of the election has created a daily torrent of speculation about which subgroups are leaning to which candidate. Often, as has been pointed out in these pages by my colleague Gabriel Sanchez, the subgroups in national polls are simply too small to have any statistical significance, making headlines swing wildly. One day, young people are deserting the Democrats; another day, Latinos are flocking to Republicans, and another day, Harris is losing Black men. It’s enough to make your head spin. The subgroup, however, that is large enough to avoid that problem is based on gender since nearly 100% of responders are cisgender, which means there are usually enough men and women in a standard poll to decrease the margin of error.1

What is rarely done, however, is to pair polling trends with what we know about turnout. Of course, we can’t predict turnout for 2024, but we can look at the most recent turnout by gender in presidential elections. If men and women turned out to vote in equal numbers, then we would expect that, for instance, if men preferred Trump by the same margins as women preferred Harris, their votes would cancel each other out, and, bottom line, the gender gap would not matter. But in fact, in recent elections, women have turned out more than men, thus affecting the gender gap. In the last presidential election, women accounted for 54.7% of the electorate and men accounted for 44%. And of course, there are simply more adult women than men in the population, especially among the elderly.2 In the seven swing states we looked at for this analysis, women composed a larger share of the electorate in 2020 than men, with one exception, Wisconsin, where, according to exit polls, 50% were men and 50% were women.

To better understand how the preference gender gap and the turnout gender gap interact, we apply the latest 2024 gender gap polling on presidential preference to the gender gap in 2020 turnout. Of course, as with everything based on polls and history, this could change. Presidential preferences among men and women might shift, and the composition of the 2024 electorate might look very different than the composition of the 2020 electorate. But this exercise illustrates the interactions between the two gender gaps—the one for presidential preference and the one for turnout.

Let’s start with the must-win state of Pennsylvania. In a recent Marist poll, women supported Harris by 55% to 43% for Trump, while men supported Harris by 44% and Trump by 54%. In the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania, women accounted for more votes than men—they were 53% of the electorate, and men were 47%. There were a total of 6,915,283 ballots cast in Pennsylvania in 2020, most of which were cast by women, amounting to 3,665,100 votes. If the 2024 gender gap in turnout remains close to what it was in 2020, and the preference polls for 2024 remain the same, that would be 2,015,805 votes for Harris versus 1,575,993 votes for Trump. Given that nearly everyone in the electorate is a man or a woman, if the gender gap in presidential preference in 2024 was applied to 2020 turnout numbers, Harris should win Pennsylvania by 114,794 votes or 1.69%. In fact, in 2020, Biden won the state by 1.2% or 81,660 votes.

In North Carolina, we see a powerful example of the impact of the presidential preference gender gap combined with the turnout gender gap. There, according to a Marist poll, Harris is currently getting 54% of the women’s vote, and Trump is getting the exact same percentage (54%) of the men’s vote. If men and women voted in the same numbers, these votes would cancel each other out. But in 2020, women accounted for 56% of all voters. If the gender gap in presidential preference in 2024 was applied to the 2020 gender gap in turnout, Harris would win narrowly by 35,358 votes or 0.65%, putting the state into the blue column. In 2020, Trump won the state by 1.3% or 74,483 votes.

In states like Michigan, where the presidential gender gap and the turnout gender gap is large, the results can be impressive. In Michigan, a Marist poll finds 56% of the women currently favor Harris and 52% of men currently favor Trump. In 2020, the Michigan electorate was 54% women and 46% men. Applying the 2024 presidential preference to 2020 turnout results in a Harris win of 321,280 or 5.92%. In 2020, Biden won the state by three percent or 154,188 votes.

In Wisconsin, (according to a Marist poll) women currently favor Harris by 56%, and men favor Trump by 53%. Wisconsin is the rare swing state where men and women voted in equal numbers in 2020—turnout was 50% for men and the same for women. Thus, if both the 2024 gender gap in presidential preference and the 2020 gender gap in turnout remain the same, Harris should win the state by 2.54% or 82,720 votes. In 2020, Biden won Wisconsin by 0.63% or 20,682 votes.

In Nevada, 53% of women currently favor Harris and 52% of men currently favor Trump, according to a poll by Emerson. In 2020, 52% of the electorate was composed of women, and 48% of men. Applying the 2024 presidential preference numbers to the 2020 turnout results in a win of 18,551 for Harris, or 1.36%. In 2020, Biden won the state by two percent with 33,596 votes.

Georgia and Arizona are the only swing states where the 2024 gender gap in presidential preference favors Trump, and in both states, the gender gap in turnout is not large enough to help Harris. In Georgia, a CBS poll found there seem to be more men planning to vote for Trump (56%) than women voting for Harris (53%). In Georgia, in 2020, women cast a large number of votes—2,799,150, or 56% of the total vote. Applying the 2024 gender gap numbers to the 2020 turnout numbers, Trump would win the state by 117,964 votes or 2.37%. In 2020, Biden had a very narrow victory in Georgia, winning it by 0.24% or 11,779 votes.

In Arizona, the current gender gap appears to favor Trump as well. Slightly more men favor Trump (53%) than women favor Harris (52%), according to a Marist poll. In 2020, women were 52% of voters and men were 48%. If these numbers hold in November, Trump would win the state by 25,996 or 0.77% of the vote. In Arizona, Biden had his narrowest win, winning the state by 0.31% with only 10,457 votes.

This exercise shows that if the composition of the electorate between men and women remains the same as it was in 2020, Harris could win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada—all states Biden won in 2020. She could also win North Carolina (which Biden lost in 2020) but by a very narrow margin. Trump would win Arizona and Georgia, two states Biden won in 2020. This would result in a Harris win in the Electoral College.

Of course, the assumptions in this analysis could easily change next month. The abortion referendum in Arizona, for instance, has the potential to boost the women’s vote past what it was in 2020, and that could be good for Harris. What will not change is that the importance of the gender gap in presidential preference is highly dependent on the existence of a gender gap in turnout. The reality of both gender gaps has hit the Republican Party hard; candidates across the board are scrambling to soften or even repeal their former statements on abortion. And the release of a very strong pro-choice stance by former First Lady Melania Trump means that from the very top of the ticket down, the Republican Party understands that this is their biggest threat.

The bottom line is this—if the gender gap in presidential preference remains the same but men’s turnout increases dramatically relative to 2020, it will be good for Trump; if women’s turnout stays the same as in 2020, it could be a good year for Harris; if it increases, it could be a very good year for her.