If parties seek to get votes, they must promote the wants of non-voters in an effort to entice them.
If they have votes guaranteed, they are free to chase the only others who currently don’t vote for them, that being those on the opposing side by promoting their wants.
But ultimately electorialism is a spectacle, and revolution is needed for genuine lasting change.
If parties seek to get votes, they must promote the wants of non-voters in an effort to entice them.
That’s not true. The Democrats don’t have to appeal to non voters. They’re perfectly free to be stupid instead, and you can’t stop them.
See, the problem with neutral voters is, you always trust other people to make intelligent decisions. That’s a very deadly mistake that has caused a lot of genocides throughout history. Us left voters acknowledge the simple truth that the Democrats are stupid, and we take their stupidity into account in our plans.
If parties seek to get votes, they must promote the wants of non-voters in an effort to entice them.
If they have votes guaranteed, they are free to chase the only others who currently don’t vote for them, that being those on the opposing side by promoting their wants.
But ultimately electorialism is a spectacle, and revolution is needed for genuine lasting change.
they don’t seek votes tho, they seek donor money. I agree electorialism is a farce, but to not vote is not a morally better option than to vote
Are you sure you phrased that comment the way you intended?
pretty sure
That’s not true. The Democrats don’t have to appeal to non voters. They’re perfectly free to be stupid instead, and you can’t stop them.
See, the problem with neutral voters is, you always trust other people to make intelligent decisions. That’s a very deadly mistake that has caused a lot of genocides throughout history. Us left voters acknowledge the simple truth that the Democrats are stupid, and we take their stupidity into account in our plans.