Bernie himself expressed disappointment that he was unable to get the turnout he wanted, especially among young people. His campaign had a flawed goal to only target 40% of the vote, and his argument for victory was that he would turn out so many young people and disaffected nonvoters.
That didn’t happen in the primary, and there wasn’t a significant difference between open and closed primaries to suggest closed primaries were the culprit. Ironically when total voter count decreased, in caucuses, it was Bernie who was favored.
If you want to blame someone for his loss, blame the fact that youth turnout wasn’t 100% for a trustworthy candidate who was promising free college, student loans forgiveness, legal weed, and free universal healthcare. I was 24 that year, so I’m not criticizing “the youth” in general, but my age cohort of tail end millennials.
So, what exactly do I call a young person who heard a politician speaking to their issues, and at that a politician who consistently showed courage and was genuine, and sat out?
Sanders was exactly what’s described. Someone to vote for. I understand cynicism, but if you actually want to see people who tackle issues you care about, you have to take the first step of voting for them. It isn’t going to happen otherwise.
How else do you expect to stop being disillusioned by politicians unless you give someone the chance? It is absolutely correct to call them apathetic, and they shot themselves in the foot. We don’t have the luxury of running five different Bernie Sanders types before they finally get off their ass.
It’s harsh, but it seems like harsh is what they need to actually affect change. Roe being overturned generated much larger electoral consequences than candidates who would’ve kept Roe.
The DNC isn’t going to change unless there’s an overwhelming outpouring of support for an insurgent candidate, like Sanders in 2020. You can only put your thumb on the scale so much. If all young people went out and voted, the numbers would’ve been too overwhelming for them to do anything.
I doubt it will either. But that doesn’t change that it’s counterproductive and pointless to be apathetic. Things don’t change for the better unless you stop being apathetic. You have to do the best you can with the resources you have available.
Most apathetic voters aren’t on Lemmy. I advocate for compulsory voting with incentives (gift card/coupon) and disincentives (fines) that are publicly funded.
The issue with compulsory voting is that an uninformed vote is more dangerous than the lack of a vote. I get what you’re saying though, I want something that’ll achieve 100% turnout. I just don’t know the best and healthiest way to do that.
I think you’re onto something though. Maybe there could be an additional incentive to take and pass a quiz about the issues and where candidates stand. No harm if you fail it, but if you pass, there’s even better gift cards and coupons.
Bernie himself expressed disappointment that he was unable to get the turnout he wanted, especially among young people. His campaign had a flawed goal to only target 40% of the vote, and his argument for victory was that he would turn out so many young people and disaffected nonvoters.
That didn’t happen in the primary, and there wasn’t a significant difference between open and closed primaries to suggest closed primaries were the culprit. Ironically when total voter count decreased, in caucuses, it was Bernie who was favored.
If you want to blame someone for his loss, blame the fact that youth turnout wasn’t 100% for a trustworthy candidate who was promising free college, student loans forgiveness, legal weed, and free universal healthcare. I was 24 that year, so I’m not criticizing “the youth” in general, but my age cohort of tail end millennials.
So, what exactly do I call a young person who heard a politician speaking to their issues, and at that a politician who consistently showed courage and was genuine, and sat out?
Sanders was exactly what’s described. Someone to vote for. I understand cynicism, but if you actually want to see people who tackle issues you care about, you have to take the first step of voting for them. It isn’t going to happen otherwise.
How else do you expect to stop being disillusioned by politicians unless you give someone the chance? It is absolutely correct to call them apathetic, and they shot themselves in the foot. We don’t have the luxury of running five different Bernie Sanders types before they finally get off their ass.
It’s harsh, but it seems like harsh is what they need to actually affect change. Roe being overturned generated much larger electoral consequences than candidates who would’ve kept Roe.
It’s not the voter’s fault, it’s the DNC.
The DNC isn’t going to change unless there’s an overwhelming outpouring of support for an insurgent candidate, like Sanders in 2020. You can only put your thumb on the scale so much. If all young people went out and voted, the numbers would’ve been too overwhelming for them to do anything.
I’m not holding my breath. Voter apathy isn’t going away.
I doubt it will either. But that doesn’t change that it’s counterproductive and pointless to be apathetic. Things don’t change for the better unless you stop being apathetic. You have to do the best you can with the resources you have available.
Most apathetic voters aren’t on Lemmy. I advocate for compulsory voting with incentives (gift card/coupon) and disincentives (fines) that are publicly funded.
The issue with compulsory voting is that an uninformed vote is more dangerous than the lack of a vote. I get what you’re saying though, I want something that’ll achieve 100% turnout. I just don’t know the best and healthiest way to do that.
I think you’re onto something though. Maybe there could be an additional incentive to take and pass a quiz about the issues and where candidates stand. No harm if you fail it, but if you pass, there’s even better gift cards and coupons.