Hamid Bendaas, a spokesperson for the IMEU Policy Project, said that during the meeting “the DNC shared with us that their own data also found that policy was, in their words, a ‘net-negative’ in the 2024 election.” Two other senior aides at the pro-Palestinian organization also said the DNC had drawn that conclusion.
What do you mean, you don’t think that’s what it says? Have you seen it? I’d love to get a copy if you’re leaking it! Do you just mean you imagine it wouldn’t say that?
I’m not a strict deontologist; I’d say I’m closer to a strict utilitarian lol My vote doesn’t mean anything except legitimizing the people I vote for and the system as a whole. The democrats and the republicans actually have power. They are the moral agent here.
In a trolley problem (since you seem like someone who might be familiar), voters are just watching from afar and wishing for the people at the switch to make one choice or the other. And that’s fine. But don’t give me shit for not wasting my time wishing.
I’d say I’m closer to a strict utilitarian lol My vote doesn’t mean anything except legitimizing the people I vote for and the system as a whole.
You are very much not. Again with the “legitimizing”. There is no “legitimacy” metric in elections. Power doesn’t scale with vote count. All that matters is which side beats the other. If only one person “legitimizes” the system, and everyone else refuses to vote, the winner still has all the powers of the president. The outcome is exactly the same as if every single voter chose them.
They don’t get fewer powers for winning with only one vote, they don’t get any extra powers by winning by 100 million votes. The concept of “legitimizing” the system is a fiction that exists only in the mind of deontologists.
In the trolley problem, voters are voting on whether to pull the lever. If enough people vote to pull the lever, the lever is pulled. It’s even more clear cut than the trolley problem, because Gaza is on both tracks. You don’t even save them by not pulling the switch, you just let everyone else on that track die too. There’s no reason not to pull the switch, there is no dilemma. Inaction is objectively the wrong choice.
My goodness you’re sweet! I think you have an extremely charitable faith in your government.
Obviously if you think voters get to determine outcomes then not voting seems completely absurd! I have power I’m not using! But the reality is that the people absolutely do not have power. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” by Gilens and Page is a good starting point. Its conclusion is that there is no correlation at all between public opinion and policy. On the other hand the correlation between the economic elite’s policy preferences and the policies adopted shows up on the graph as a nice, neat upward-slanting line at 45 degrees, with a 70 percent correlation between strong elite support and policy adoption. Later studies have continued to back up this finding. It doesn’t make the press much, of course, because no one with power benefits from this getting talked about.
You are imagining the voters are a person with a lever that’s red on one side and blue on the other, with all the corresponding policy on the two tracks. I think the trolley problem analogy I described is closer to useful. There are two with power arguing over how to handle the lever (or maybe even…at the risk of complicating the trolley problem even further, levers!), and voters are far away, wishing or shouting their support for one or other of those people with power. When the democrat or republican wins, they’ll pull the levers to enact the policies they see fit to.
And yes, voting absolutely legitimizes the system, why do you think they always cite turnout statistics? What do you mean there is no legitimacy metric in elections? It’s absolutely untrue that all that matters is which side beats the other. If a population boycotts an election, that’s an expression of power and absolutely delegitimizes the results. That’s an extreme example, but it applies all the way up. The United States wants to pretend to be a democracy; it has to pretend that its people get a say in how things are done. Participating in that system absolutely legitimizes that narrative. I’m not saying you should never do it, just because it’s a lie. If the democrats changed course on palestine I’d be banging on doors for them, trying to get as many people to vote as possible, even though I know it’s a lie that they are doing it for any reason other than to help in their struggle with the other bourgeois party. That little grain of legitimacy from your little vote is not a lot, but it’s something. And frankly, if your vote isn’t going to matter anyway because you don’t live in a swing state, that grain of legitimacy is the only thing you can contribute.
If a population boycotts an election, that’s an expression of power and absolutely delegitimizes the results.
This is your central flaw. It doesn’t. The winner still gets sworn in, they still choose their cabinet, they still enact their policies. Life goes on without your input.
That also happens when a banana republic has an election with over 100% turnout lol The fact that a dictatorship holds elections and then does stuff doesn’t make it a democracy.
In response to my point that voter turnout legitimizes democracy, you point out that elections lead to winners who go ahead and govern, regardless of turnout…and that means the results are legitimate. Which is wrong.
If you think democracy (rule by the people) means anything, then whether the system gets input from people or not clearly matters. Only fascists think that power is the only legitimacy. So, despite their “elections,” and despite the fact that the winners go on to govern, if the population does not turn up to vote, elections are not democratic. Whether that’s because the people have no faith in the system, or because of state repression doesn’t really matter…the people cannot be said to be ruling that state. Showing up to vote legitimizes the system, and not showing up delegitimizes it.
The CIA-backed opposition parties in countries the US doesn’t like call for boycotts. Opposition parties to CIA-backed leaders of banana republics call for boycotts. If it’s not a thing…why do you think they’re all doing that?
So, despite their “elections,” and despite the fact that the winners go on to govern, if the population does not turn up to vote, elections are not democratic
So? That’s not a mechanism that overturns the result. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says " If enough voters boycott the election, the result is illegitimate and new candidates must be chosen".
“Legitimacy” is a functionally meaningless term here. It has exactly zero effect on the material outcome. It’s not a real thing that means anything outside your head.
So it’s meaningless to say Russia’s a legitimate democracy and putin is the legitimate democratically elected leader? Batista was in Cuba too, I guess…he held elections. The July 26 movement (and others) boycotted them because they were just dumb…they shoulda just voted harder! They just didn’t understand that democratic legitimacy doesn’t matter. Maybe they should have circulated a petition to stop the slavery and torture and stuff.
I don’t know what the material effect of the lack of faith in the electoral system caused by these parties getting less and less interested in pretending the US is a democracy will be…but it’s not inside my head, man. The rest of the world (and history) are paying attention. Other countries are (and should be) distancing themselves from the United States.
That’s not a mechanism that overturns the result. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says …
It’s as though you think Almighty God handed down the Constitution of the United States as immutable laws of the universe. As though the only thing that matters is which flavor of asshole is sitting on the throne.
The constitution only lays out the rules of the game, but if the game is bullshit, the game is bullshit. Should we change the rules of the game? Should we keep playing the game? What do I do when the rules of the game are not fair? What do I do when if the rules are fair but another player is pointing a gun at me? Questions like this cannot be answered by the rules of the game.
https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaza
What do you mean, you don’t think that’s what it says? Have you seen it? I’d love to get a copy if you’re leaking it! Do you just mean you imagine it wouldn’t say that?
I’m not a strict deontologist; I’d say I’m closer to a strict utilitarian lol My vote doesn’t mean anything except legitimizing the people I vote for and the system as a whole. The democrats and the republicans actually have power. They are the moral agent here.
In a trolley problem (since you seem like someone who might be familiar), voters are just watching from afar and wishing for the people at the switch to make one choice or the other. And that’s fine. But don’t give me shit for not wasting my time wishing.
You are very much not. Again with the “legitimizing”. There is no “legitimacy” metric in elections. Power doesn’t scale with vote count. All that matters is which side beats the other. If only one person “legitimizes” the system, and everyone else refuses to vote, the winner still has all the powers of the president. The outcome is exactly the same as if every single voter chose them.
They don’t get fewer powers for winning with only one vote, they don’t get any extra powers by winning by 100 million votes. The concept of “legitimizing” the system is a fiction that exists only in the mind of deontologists.
In the trolley problem, voters are voting on whether to pull the lever. If enough people vote to pull the lever, the lever is pulled. It’s even more clear cut than the trolley problem, because Gaza is on both tracks. You don’t even save them by not pulling the switch, you just let everyone else on that track die too. There’s no reason not to pull the switch, there is no dilemma. Inaction is objectively the wrong choice.
My goodness you’re sweet! I think you have an extremely charitable faith in your government.
Obviously if you think voters get to determine outcomes then not voting seems completely absurd! I have power I’m not using! But the reality is that the people absolutely do not have power. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” by Gilens and Page is a good starting point. Its conclusion is that there is no correlation at all between public opinion and policy. On the other hand the correlation between the economic elite’s policy preferences and the policies adopted shows up on the graph as a nice, neat upward-slanting line at 45 degrees, with a 70 percent correlation between strong elite support and policy adoption. Later studies have continued to back up this finding. It doesn’t make the press much, of course, because no one with power benefits from this getting talked about.
You are imagining the voters are a person with a lever that’s red on one side and blue on the other, with all the corresponding policy on the two tracks. I think the trolley problem analogy I described is closer to useful. There are two with power arguing over how to handle the lever (or maybe even…at the risk of complicating the trolley problem even further, levers!), and voters are far away, wishing or shouting their support for one or other of those people with power. When the democrat or republican wins, they’ll pull the levers to enact the policies they see fit to.
And yes, voting absolutely legitimizes the system, why do you think they always cite turnout statistics? What do you mean there is no legitimacy metric in elections? It’s absolutely untrue that all that matters is which side beats the other. If a population boycotts an election, that’s an expression of power and absolutely delegitimizes the results. That’s an extreme example, but it applies all the way up. The United States wants to pretend to be a democracy; it has to pretend that its people get a say in how things are done. Participating in that system absolutely legitimizes that narrative. I’m not saying you should never do it, just because it’s a lie. If the democrats changed course on palestine I’d be banging on doors for them, trying to get as many people to vote as possible, even though I know it’s a lie that they are doing it for any reason other than to help in their struggle with the other bourgeois party. That little grain of legitimacy from your little vote is not a lot, but it’s something. And frankly, if your vote isn’t going to matter anyway because you don’t live in a swing state, that grain of legitimacy is the only thing you can contribute.
This is your central flaw. It doesn’t. The winner still gets sworn in, they still choose their cabinet, they still enact their policies. Life goes on without your input.
That also happens when a banana republic has an election with over 100% turnout lol The fact that a dictatorship holds elections and then does stuff doesn’t make it a democracy.
What does that have to do with my point?
In response to my point that voter turnout legitimizes democracy, you point out that elections lead to winners who go ahead and govern, regardless of turnout…and that means the results are legitimate. Which is wrong.
If you think democracy (rule by the people) means anything, then whether the system gets input from people or not clearly matters. Only fascists think that power is the only legitimacy. So, despite their “elections,” and despite the fact that the winners go on to govern, if the population does not turn up to vote, elections are not democratic. Whether that’s because the people have no faith in the system, or because of state repression doesn’t really matter…the people cannot be said to be ruling that state. Showing up to vote legitimizes the system, and not showing up delegitimizes it.
The CIA-backed opposition parties in countries the US doesn’t like call for boycotts. Opposition parties to CIA-backed leaders of banana republics call for boycotts. If it’s not a thing…why do you think they’re all doing that?
So? That’s not a mechanism that overturns the result. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says " If enough voters boycott the election, the result is illegitimate and new candidates must be chosen".
“Legitimacy” is a functionally meaningless term here. It has exactly zero effect on the material outcome. It’s not a real thing that means anything outside your head.
So it’s meaningless to say Russia’s a legitimate democracy and putin is the legitimate democratically elected leader? Batista was in Cuba too, I guess…he held elections. The July 26 movement (and others) boycotted them because they were just dumb…they shoulda just voted harder! They just didn’t understand that democratic legitimacy doesn’t matter. Maybe they should have circulated a petition to stop the slavery and torture and stuff.
I don’t know what the material effect of the lack of faith in the electoral system caused by these parties getting less and less interested in pretending the US is a democracy will be…but it’s not inside my head, man. The rest of the world (and history) are paying attention. Other countries are (and should be) distancing themselves from the United States.
It’s as though you think Almighty God handed down the Constitution of the United States as immutable laws of the universe. As though the only thing that matters is which flavor of asshole is sitting on the throne.
The constitution only lays out the rules of the game, but if the game is bullshit, the game is bullshit. Should we change the rules of the game? Should we keep playing the game? What do I do when the rules of the game are not fair? What do I do when if the rules are fair but another player is pointing a gun at me? Questions like this cannot be answered by the rules of the game.