…yeah, I’m sure Trump will have your back…

  • Wodge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    In a 2 party system, not voting for a party that does not rely on voter suppression, is giving a vote to a party that does.

    Conservatism needs disenfranchised votes, they always benefit from lower voter turn out.

    • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      8 months ago

      No, a +1 for Candidate A and a -1 for Candidate B is a swing of 2. A -1 for Candidate B is a swing of 1. 1 =/= 2.

      • Wodge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Mathematically yes, you are correct. Politically, no. Conservatism needs low voter turnout to win. More voters = Higher likelihood of a more centrist/progressive victory. There is a reason conservative governments all over the planet are pushing for disenfranchising voters.

        • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          Disenfranchising disproportionately affecting one party over another is not the same as “Not voting for X is a vote for Y.”

          Were that actually true, Trump would have easily won the 2020 election with 154 million votes, since we’re counting the 80 million nonvoters as votes for him.

          • Wodge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Disenfranchising reduces the total number of votes required to get a majority, so not voting for Biden helps whatever republican he ends up going against. Remember how McCarthy only got in the house speakership because Gaetz marked himself as present instead of voting for him? It’s the same thing.