No Stupid Questions

I think this was just one issue of many that led to her loss, but to answer your question, it's somewhat simple:

There are 2 viable options. Voting for one shows support for their platform. But if the 2 options stand together on an important issue and the voter is on the other side of it, the voter cannot support their stance by voting for either option. Voting for either would only serve to erase their opinion which is counter-productive.

If a voter's opinions cannot be expressed by voting for either option, then it leaves one final recourse to be heard: To not vote for either of them.

This shows up as a drop in turnout. A substantially poor turnout means that there are voters that can be picked up next cycle if either party cares to cater to them. If any parties do this, then the non-voters have successfully exerted influence.

Maybe you disagree that this is a logical strategy but consider this:

Some citizens tried this and lo and behold, their voices were heard. The whole internet is up in arms! All that remains now is to see whether the politicians listen.

They probably won't, but we wouldn't even be having this discussion if people turned out to vote against their beliefs on the matter. Which means that, on this issue, the strategy of withholding votes has already been more successful than any outcome that could be arrived at through voting (because, again, those outcomes would only serve to silence these potential voters).

My own argument to these people has been that I'd prefer they go out and cast their (wasted) votes for a third party, rather than simply stay home. A lot of Lemmy disagrees with me on that, focusing on the (true) realization that their third parties won't get elected.

In this election's current aftermath, much of the blame has been stating that voters were just lazy or unmotivated. The only thing this message encourages is to repeat more rallies, make more promises by demographics and region so people know to get out and vote.

If you vote third party, it sends a message that you are motivated to vote, but you are not pleased with the current messages of the party. That results in a very different change of action.

Unfortunately, this whole practice is extremely long-term-focused. Many people in this election have been desperate for short-term solutions, like the Ukraine/Gaza wars. Ideally, this kind of reaction would have started in 2016/2020 - but third-party votes have been miniscule in those elections too.

I think some people have explained it decently, but as someone who did not vote for Harris, I have a simple explanation:

I do not want the Democratic party to think it's Ok to be slightly better than Trump.

If I'm going to be honest, trans rights and immigration are minor issues compared to inequality and war in Gaza.

The Dems can be better, but they choose not to. Me voting for Dems signals that what Dems are doing is acceptable, but it's not. I supported third party in 2024, and I will continue to do so until the Democrats get serious reform.

(For those who think it would be "less bad" with Harris, that's the problem. I don't care for "less bad" when the duopoly got us here regardless. Represent the people.)

To quote a user from another thread:

Theyre not the ones that need to learn. Voters need to learn DNC is a bunch of wealthy moderates grifting voters.

Naïve/entitled people fail to grasp the concept of compromise.