No, you quoted me saying that treating voting like the absolute most important means of political struggle causes people to tune out. Not the act of voting, the treatment of the concept at a societal level. Stop making up strawmen.
The closest direct source I found suggests that there is a negative correlation between system-justifying beliefs and collective anti-system action. If people believe voting legitimately is a means by which they can enact social change, they are less likely to organize against the system itself. This does not mean voting itself is against organizing, in fact organizers vote at higher rates than non-organizers. The importance here is that collective action is diminished when that is directed towards engaging with the system itself.
I feel like it would be more effective to highlight political movements that required changing the status quo of the political landscape all involved more than just voting. Like lgbt rights starting by throwing a brick at a cop or women’s suffrage obvious not coming from women all showing up to the polls to vote for their right to vote.
Basically take a look at any history book and the case is clearly made that effective political change never came from voting alone.
That’s what I found more convincing personally, but agent_nycto wanted, specifically, a study for a very specific claim, so that’s what I had to work with. I definitely agree that historical study of how political change happens is more effective!
Even reading through the abstract, this study is irrelevant to what we’re talking about here. They did a study that showed how people who are against the system and protest the system will inevitably butt heads with people who want to keep the system, the status quo.
Nowhere is it talking about voting, and that voting causes people to stop organizing.
The fact you said you “found” it instead of having that information on hand, and that you had to stretch to say this proves your theory means what I thought from the start.
The whole “people who vote will organize less” theory you state as absolute, the whole basis of your criticism, is made up. You assumed that this was true instead of checking. Shameful.
The study directly shows a negative correlation between those who believe the system represents a valid path to change, and those who organize against the system. This is my point. I did not say “people who vote will organize less,” I said funelling people into electoralism and treating it as the primary means of change deflates revolutionary organizing. These are distinct and separate points, and since you cannot argue against my actual point, you make up strawmen.
No, you quoted me saying that treating voting like the absolute most important means of political struggle causes people to tune out. Not the act of voting, the treatment of the concept at a societal level. Stop making up strawmen.
So prove it. Where’s your source?
The closest direct source I found suggests that there is a negative correlation between system-justifying beliefs and collective anti-system action. If people believe voting legitimately is a means by which they can enact social change, they are less likely to organize against the system itself. This does not mean voting itself is against organizing, in fact organizers vote at higher rates than non-organizers. The importance here is that collective action is diminished when that is directed towards engaging with the system itself.
I feel like it would be more effective to highlight political movements that required changing the status quo of the political landscape all involved more than just voting. Like lgbt rights starting by throwing a brick at a cop or women’s suffrage obvious not coming from women all showing up to the polls to vote for their right to vote.
Basically take a look at any history book and the case is clearly made that effective political change never came from voting alone.
That’s what I found more convincing personally, but agent_nycto wanted, specifically, a study for a very specific claim, so that’s what I had to work with. I definitely agree that historical study of how political change happens is more effective!
Even reading through the abstract, this study is irrelevant to what we’re talking about here. They did a study that showed how people who are against the system and protest the system will inevitably butt heads with people who want to keep the system, the status quo.
Nowhere is it talking about voting, and that voting causes people to stop organizing.
The fact you said you “found” it instead of having that information on hand, and that you had to stretch to say this proves your theory means what I thought from the start.
The whole “people who vote will organize less” theory you state as absolute, the whole basis of your criticism, is made up. You assumed that this was true instead of checking. Shameful.
The study directly shows a negative correlation between those who believe the system represents a valid path to change, and those who organize against the system. This is my point. I did not say “people who vote will organize less,” I said funelling people into electoralism and treating it as the primary means of change deflates revolutionary organizing. These are distinct and separate points, and since you cannot argue against my actual point, you make up strawmen.
You said it right there.
Yep! I never said voting causes apathy, I pointed to the way people treat voting as a cause of apathy towards organizing. Critical distinction!
Which you failed to prove regardless. Your argument is based on nothing
I gave evidence, you pretended the evidence didn’t support my point because you continued to pretend my point was a different one entirely.
His ass.