I think the conversation around voting, at least in the united states but also in almost any "democracy" in our current world, needs refocusing. We don't have democracy in any pure sense of the word. We have representative democracy. We vote for people who then make decisions on our behalf, and we have essentially no guarantee that they will do what they campaigned on. We've seen this play out time and time again. A vote in this setup is akin to an llm query in some capacities -- it is not deterministic, or even approaching it. I don't see the reasoning in pouting about people not engaging with a system that has clearly demonstrated it has essentially no effect on real world outcomes in adherence with their voiced will.
I'm truncating the corruption and voting as harm reduction conversation.
In a more coherent world, we would collectively vote on decisions and then select a person or group to implement those decisions in a scoped and instantly recallable fashion -- direct democracy, or even consensus. Robust decisions, informed by many perspectives. In feedback with the people and the ecology.
People are disengaging with our current system because it very clearly does not work. The only time it appeared to work was when there was the very real threat of an organized and mobilized public. We should be organizing our communities into solidaric networks of councils, unions, and cooperatives yesterday. Some people already are.
As an aside, I think it's wild that we're still having the voting conversation on slrpnk.net. Vote if you feel it helps stop the bleeding. But it won't mend the bone. That requires a more structural solution. And that is what we should be focusing on.
You can judge it pretty succinctly: if they are controlling a resource that others depend on in order to live (such as deriving a wage), then they are the bourgeoisie. What you’re referring to is closer to lumpenproletariat — someone who works for themselves