It mostly makes sense. There are infamous examples of voting being de jure or de facto illegal for groups of people where their suffrage would likely cause significant change. Just look at the USA pre-Civil Rights Act, Rhodesia, Apartheid South Africa, and Israel. I'm sure there are others.
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
-4 points (33.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43746 readers
1462 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
if voting made no difference, then why do they try their hardest to prevent poor people and minorities from voting?
Exactly this.
Indifference is how you know something doesn't matter. I remember this lesson even from game development: People complaining about your game is still alright. When the feedback stops entirely, that's when you fucked up.
i think it's misguided because voting can have an impact; but doesn't since that's the extent of civic engagement for an overwhelming majority of americans which leads to manipulate-able voters who have to use their emotions to decide on things that they know nothing about.
Pretty obviously false, and I'd genuinely question the social and intellectual capabilities of anybody who truly believes this - originally sarcastic - phrase.