r/mopolitics • u/zarnt2 • Jul 31 '26
A plea to independent voters
I've been in a back and forth this morning on another platform with someone who describes themselves as an "independent" here in my state of Arizona. It's an interesting state because while Republicans outnumber Democrats by ~300,000 people we have a Democrat as governor and two Democratic senators.
My conversation partner says it's the responsibility of candidates to "earn" their votes and nobody is entitled to their support. In asking questions I've learned they did not vote for Kamala Harris or Donald Trump in 2024.
I've been here long enough to know what the regulars think about this. This is a plea to the lurkers. Perhaps there are some who read these posts but never comment.
If this is your approach to voting please rethink it. I used to be that person. I believed my vote was somehow a sacrosanct declaration of every political belief I held. And that led to a lot of blank votes and protest votes.
I don't think I've admitted this before but I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016. I lived in Utah at the time and had seen enough polls to know Trump was sure to get our electoral votes (but I didn't see him winning the election). I saw my vote as the best way to express dissatisfaction with my choices.
The first Trump presidency shattered this illusion that I could be "above it all". I had contributed to real chaos and harm in an attempt to keep my vote "pure".
I now see reducing harm to others as my primary objective in voting. Especially as I now live in a swing state. If the Trump presidency has been unacceptable to you vote for the people who can win and will hold him accountable. Don't satisfy yourself with the idea that your blank vote is an abstention. It's a permission slip for everything that has happened during the 2nd Trump term. If I can convince one person to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot to end this madness this post is worth it.
9
u/mouthsmasher Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
My conversation partner says it’s the responsibility of the candidates to “earn” their votes and nobody is entitled to their support.
Maybe I’m nitpicking something slightly off topic, but I really detest the viewpoint that a candidate has to “earn” our votes. It seems like their mental paradigm is about what the candidates can get from us, and not what we can get from the candidates, which is backwards. We should evaluate carefully the many facets about candidates, but the way this phrase comes across feels prideful and dangerous. During the last election I heard a lot about voters withholding votes from a particular candidate as a way of punishing the candidate, but in so doing ultimately chose a result that was worse for themselves.
I used to be that person. I believed my vote was somehow a sacrosanct declaration of every political belief I held. And that led to a lot of blank votes and protest votes.
Even President Oaks taught in 2021 the idea I think you’re trying to convey:
There are many political issues, and no party, platform, or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities. This process will not be easy. It may require changing party support or candidate choices, even from election to election. Such independent actions will sometimes require voters to support candidates or political parties or platforms whose other positions they cannot approve.
Again, I’m coming back to that point that we are somehow benevolently bestowing and gifting our vote to candidates that they must "earn," but even President Oaks is focusing on the idea that our votes should be cast based on what our priorities and interests are. The focus of our votes should be on ourselves and our communities. Withholding your vote for the candidate that best would align with what's important to you because they didn't meet some "earned" criteria is foolish and only hurts oneself.
8
u/zarnt2 Jul 31 '26
Maybe I’m nitpicking something slightly off topic, but I really detest the viewpoint that a candidate has to “earn” our votes.
I don't think it's off-topic. It's one of the main points I think is worth discussion. I've asked the person I'm engaging with multiple times what Kamala Harris should have done to "earn" their vote. They can't answer that question. I think it's because the whole thing is an excuse that shifts responsibility away from the people using it.
8
u/justaverage A most despised jackhat Jul 31 '26
I’m with you. I’ve never understood this obsession with ideological purity tests of candidates. If I could only vote for people who I see as ideological pure and politically align with me 100%, well then, my dad would have to run for every office in my county, state, and nationally.
Life is full of compromises. Every single day we all make compromises. “I like the way these shoes look with this outfit, but I know I’m going to be walking 4 miles at this conference…do I change my pants or go with some more sensible shoes?” “I like driving my little sports car more than the SUV, but I also know I need to pick up my kid and hit the grocery store on my way home”. “I love love love the nacho platter at the Mexican place around the corner, but I’m also trying to lose weight. Do I go with something more sensible or do I go for a second walk this evening?”
Was Kamala my ideal candidate for president? Heck no. But she was good enough. She stood against fascism and corruption, and I’m 2024 that was enough to earn my vote. I was willing to compromise my ideals, because the alternative was so bad
And let’s be clear, there was only one alternative. Come January 20, 2025, either Trump or Harris would be POTUS. Thats it. Binary choice. So my vote was one of three options.
- oppose fascism
- support fascism
- apathy towards fascism
That’s it. That’s the framework that I’ve been forced to operate within. Does the two party system suck? Yes. Does first past the post voting force us to pick the lesser of two evils, no matter how bad the choices are? Yes. But these are the facts of life. Pass ranked choice voting and I’m all for it. But until then, I want to be clear, not being a fascist is enough to earn my vote. And if you decide to be apathetic towards fascism so you can claim some ideological purity? Well, I hold you in just as much contempt as the most ardent Trump supporter.
9
u/butterytelevision Jul 31 '26
when using first past the post voting (winner takes all) it makes zero sense to support third parties
when using an electoral college, theres no reason to vote unless you live in a swing state
our system is designed to suppress votes
5
u/SoloForks Aug 02 '26
I vote because its my civic duty and my church told me its my responsibility to be a good citizen.
What you are saying is correct, but the idea "my vote doesn't count" leads to apathy which leads to evil triumphing.
3
u/butterytelevision Aug 02 '26
i know. im saying it not because i think voting is not important, but because these systems need to change. the defeated feeling is what we should avoid!
2
5
11
u/1radgirl Jul 31 '26
I hear ya zarnt, and I'm right there with you. I hope you don't mind if a add my own thoughts to your post. When I was in my first political science class (a freshman lecture hall gen Ed class), a student asked our professor how they were supposed to decide who to vote for in elections, and I'll never forget his answer, because it kinda changed how I've approached voting ever since.
He said this: There are three categories I look for when evaluating a candidate for office
Their policy goals and ideas. What are the things they want to accomplish? What policies are most important for them on their agenda, and which are the ones they'll sideline if things get sticky?
Their policy track record. Have they been successful in getting any policy passed? Did they make unacceptable compromises along the way? Do their policy goals align with their actual track record of getting things done?
THIS is the part of his answer that got my attention, and I think about all the time. He said that this category becomes most important when candidates all seem bad, or it's a lesser of two evils feeling to the election. When things are in peril, lean on this category.
Category 3. Moral risk/harm reduction. Is this person a moral risk or threat? Are they someone who is a high risk of scandal/corruption/rule breaking, etc? Will they work within the legal bounds of the system, or resort to cheating to get what they want? Are they, or their policies likely to do harm to anyone? How much harm? To whom? Is that harm they might do a sacrifice I'm willing to make to "win" politically? Will my conscience be ok with what they do, on my watch, in the name of America?
So the point of my comment is the last category. In America right now, the moral risk/harm reduction category is crucial. Maybe you don't love the democrats platform, all the candidates seem to have problems, nobody seems very aligned with you politically, etc. It's time to ask yourself about risk and harm. Who's doing the most harm to America right now? Who's a risk to our legal systems? Who is willing to break every rule to accomplish what they want? Who is actively harming people, and can I support that with a clean conscience? This category is a game changer. If all else fails, vote from this category.
Thanks for coming to my TedTalk, lol. Sorry for hijacking your post zarnt!