Don't shame people for not voting

Sure, by then it's too late. Encourage or better yet, help people to vote. Offer to go with them to the polls.

Nothing wrong at all with encouraging voter participation, regardless of who they may vote for.

When more people vote, it is better for everyone.

I'm just an outsider, but it seems to me that in 2016, many people on the left/anarchist /socialist/liberal whatever weren't enthusiastic about Clinton and didn't vote or voted third party. This led to Trump winning and subsequently nominate enough Supreme Court justices to set back abortion rights 50 years among many other things that probably are worse than whatever Clinton could have done.

You can express your preferences in primaries, local elections, in movements to change voting laws, but once candidates in a first past the post system are locked in, it's intentional ignorance to pretend like it won't be one of the two major party candidates that will win, and not voting for one helps the other one. If you're okay with that, fine, but don't pretend that not voting is a neutral act. You're giving away your voice to whoever is voting one of the two major candidates, and I assure you the right does not care about their candidate's past or unsavory aspects.

Voting takes like maybe 2 hours of my time in a given year to maintain registration, scan an information pamphlet and the actual act of delivering a ballot. I do have circumstances such that voting access is easy for me. I realize it is not so universally, but there is still an untapped ‘market’ of people who could easily vote, but don’t.

Like it or not, elections do have consequences. Even so, I agree shaming is likely ineffective as a motivational tool. Yes, i feel personally that people should vote strategically becuse in general it is a low cost activity with outsized consequences. Do a million other things too, because you have time.

Ok lets use your rule: no shaming.

What then are the more effective tools for uniting people to work in the same general direction? Successful movements seem to unite people in common cause without making it an explicit alliance between sects.

I don’t have a lot of solid answers but I would claim this is a good place to start a discussion.

This is the kind of shit you can say when you are (cis white straight male) comfortable that you personally won't be affected by the results of an election. For the members of vulnerable groups this election is a fight for our lives. Voting for "Donald Duck" doesn't actually send a message, it just lets you suppress your own vote.

Yes, presidential voting is usually a choice between two evils, but in this case it's a choice between a status-quo neolibral and a genuine wannabe dictator the likes of which the US has not yet encountered.

This is full-on Mussolini territory, and I want to emphasize: It's very difficult for Anarchism to grow as a movement if you're being hunted down to be executed, unless you can beat the executioners militarily.

Let's take a quick look at history:

In 1921 Mussolini was elected to the lower chamber of Italy's parliament, the Chamber of Deputies, and the next year, tens of thousands of armed Fascists marched on Rome, demanding Mussolini be named prime minister.

Once Mussolini was elected by voters, it was much easier for him to gain further power. What happened to the Anarchists in Italy, who were at their peak before Mussolini was elected? They were forced to flee the country, destroying their ability to create communities in Italy and effect positive change there. Many of them traveled to Spain to help during the Spanish Civil War.

Okay, what about Hitler?

In the 1930. elections, the Nazi Party received 18.3% of all votes, a total of 6 million. Rocker was worried: "Once the Nazis get to power, we'll all go the way of Landauer and Eisner" (who were killed by reactionaries in the course of the Munich Soviet Republic uprising).

The Anarchists were clearly worried about them getting increasing political power.

Hitler gained popularity nationwide by exploiting unrest during the Great Depression, and in 1932 he placed second in the presidential race. Hitler’s various maneuvers resulted in the winner, Paul von Hindenburg, appointing him chancellor in January 1933. The following month the Reichstag fire occurred, and it provided an excuse for a decree overriding all guarantees of freedom. Then on March 23 the Enabling Act was passed, giving full powers to Hitler. When Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934, the chancellorship and the presidency were merged, and Hitler secured his position as Führer (“leader”).

Well shit, so his winning of that election enabled him to do exactly what the Anarchists feared, further entrenching himself as a dictator within a year of attaining power, enabling him the legal power to hunt the Anarchists down with impunity, destroying all the years of hard work building up their unions, gathering their strength politically, and their ability to organize. Like the Italian Anarchists, they were forced to flee the country as well, and also helped in the Spanish Civil War (turn on subtitles).

What was German Anarchist sentiment after WWII?

Rocker thought young Germans were all either totally cynical or inclined to fascism and awaited a new generation to grow up before anarchism could bloom once again in the country.

So, basically snuffed the movement for decades. Ouch.

Also, let's double back to Spain and the Spanish Civil War (I do that a lot), the third Fascist nation of that period. How were their fascists (Franco) able to win the war against the Spanish Anarchists? The Spanish fascists suddenly had two friendly world powers, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, ready to back them with troop training, shiploads of equipment and arms, soldiers, and economic aid. So the ramifications of them both winning their elections led to the ultimate downfall of the largest and most promising Anarchist revolution the world has ever seen.

I bet in both Germany and Italy, the alternatives were 'less bad' options, but holy shit it would've been so much better if those less bad options were chosen.

My personal conclusion from this little stroll through history? Voting has major consequences when true fascists are on the ballot, and it doesn't make any sense for an Anarchist to sit it out when so much is on the line.

It could be argued voting against Mussolini wouldn't have mattered since he won the popular vote by a landslide, but Hitler did not have the popular vote, he only had 43.9% of the vote, but won due to the opposition diluting their vote across multiple parties (so voting there definitely would've mattered if people had voted defensively).

Compare that to the US election, which will be VERY close, and where your vote will DEFINITELY matter.

If we let the US become fascist from political inaction, that will inevitably make it harder for Anarchist movements to succeed both in the US and around the world (such as Rojava), just like Hitler and Mussolini made it harder for the Anarchists in Spain to succeed all those years ago.

@stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net, I (very friendily) toss down the gauntlet, and challenge you to refute my claims of history! :D

Have at thee!

I'd be so stoked if the 50+% people who decide not to vote had someone who they are willing to vote for. I don't care if it's from the two main groups.

I am fine with protest votes and those who simply don't vote, I'm just stating a desire for the ballots to have an option for everyone.