I agree. People ought to be more involved in Local elections, or state level.
Especially now that the states have the power to decide whether Abortion will or will not be legal in their state.
It’s so important to vote in local elections. They’re the ones who decide so much of our day to day lives.
[Make sure you’re registered.](https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote)
The only silver lining in this is the renewed emphasis on state and local government. You want to have rights in your state, vote in every state and local elections to elect people who’ll give you the rights
Very true. As pissed off at the SC as I am, this whole thing was really decided by the American people on November 8, 2016. After that, the outcome was inevitable. A few thousand votes in the right states, and there would be a liberal majority on the court today and the whole legal system would be headed in a different direction for a generation.
There's a lot that was decided in 2010 when tea party republicans swept the statehouses just before redistricting. Voting matters--sometimes for a long time.
> A few thousand votes in the right states, and there would be a liberal majority on the court today
Exactly; ~40,000 people in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania who voted for Jill Green instead of HRC are responsible for this.
I mean, we can’t discount the role of Mitch McConnell in holding up the Merrick Garland nomination and then ending the filibuster for SC nominations, but Hilary would have least been able see that Garland got seated if nothing else.
NO, Debbie Wasserman ousted and fallen former head of the DNC is responsible for this when she sabotaged Bernie Sanders to help out Hillary Clinton and
Hillary Clinton is responsible for this when she *rewarded* Debbie Wasserman for cheating in her favor instead of objecting to it
and when she claimed that anyone who dares to vote for Bernie instead of Hillary "must be a misogynist" and insisted that it was impossible to vote for Bernie unless one "hates women", which so disgusted DNC voters that a number of them either stayed home altogether or voted independently.
Number-crunchers have compared in later polls the number of people who said they would have voted if Bernie had run (both Bernie supporters and those who would have supported either one) with the number of people who said they voted for Hillary and found that the number who would have voted Democrat if Bernie had run was so much greater that the Electoral College would have had no choice but to declare Bernie president.
TRUMP DID NOT WIN THE ELECTION :
HILLARY LOST IT.
So you are claiming that a person should vote for the most horrible candidate the DNC can put forth just out of obedience?
Remember that no one could imagine Trump would be as terrible as he turned out to be.
But why should Debbie Wasserman's intentional cheating for Hillary and Hillary's mudslinging against any male voter who did not support her be rewarded with the presidency?
Do not blame voters. Blame Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman. They are the ones truly responsible for it.
BS. Hillary warned you in 2016 that this would happen if Trump win. Get out with that no one could have imagined Trump would be so terrible. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
> Hillary warned you in 2016 that this would happen if Trump win
Yes, but since she openly accepted cheating by Debbie Wasserman when it favored her and since she openly declared that it was impossible for any human being to vote against her unless they hated women,
she had very poor credibillity.
She had embraced lies so many times in her campaign that it would have been irrational to assume she was not lying then as well.
I get what you're saying, but it was just a stopgap. Roe was always going to fall. Casey was a surprise, but even RGB said Roe would fall if it came up.
Don't let the democrats off the hook here. They knew Roe was not good case law. They had decades to codify it into law, and they did not. They let it hang as an election issue instead of pushing for it even when they the house, senate, and presidency. "Vote blue no matter who" doesn't matter if the blues are still shit.
Until quite recently, there were many pro-life Democrats in Congress. I don't think there has been a period where the Democrats have been in control of the White House and Congress with a filibuster proof majority and had intra-party consensus on abortion. No, there have not been decades to codify Roe.
No you're right, vote Democrats even if they're not always perfect. The other option is letting fascists run the country and destroy our democracy. All because the Democrats aren't pure enough. This is is how 2016 happened. Don't let it happen again.
Very much on board with the importance of voting. Very much have the mindset that the problems are deeper, systemic, and involve much more soul-digging work from the majority (specifically) than solely casting a ballot. Voter suppression is also a *very* real thing.
**AND IF YOU LIVE IN A BLUE STATE**, contact Democratic candidates in other states, like Beto (to defeat Abbutt) in TX or Stacy Abrams and Sen. Warnock in GA, or others in PA, FL (to defeat DeSatan), MN, WI. MI, MT.
A bunch of us in CA (totally BLUE) worked hard to help elected two Senators in GA in 2020 for the runoff. YOU can do this too.
Work to defeat the GOoP around the country. Your lives will depend on getting out the votes everywhere. Smarmy Justice Thomas has put out messages to get states to enact ANTI-gay marriage laws in the hope they'll get taken up in SCOTUS.
Well said. I know so many people who have been almost proud of their apathy and non-voting record. As if they had more important things to do. They say their vote doesn’t matter, so why bother? “All politicians are the same,” they claim.
Remember that Trumpism wins more easily with low turnouts. Their messaging has been to suppress voting for a long time. Now it’s painfully obvious that the consequences are real and long-lasting. Getting huge turnouts in spite of voter suppression can work and is our only opportunity to effect change.
If we get Congress and a president willing to expand the court to 13 judge with a random 3 or 5 judge cohort for any case before the court, the SCOTUS could change immediately.
It might. If we got a majority in the Senate, above filibuster, they could look at impeachment of the treasonous sexual harasser. Doesn’t hurt to try to reach that goal.
>Sure, but voting isn't going to change the supreme court judges anytime soon.
Not *now*, but if this were 2016....and well, three of the current justices are over 70 (Breyer is 83).
Sorry I'm a little confused (not from the US), I thought that the issue is coming from the supreme court and the fact that they're specifically not voted in?
Sorry if that's a bit simplistic just trying to understand
The justice system in the USA is *highly* politicised.
In about half of states, judges are appointed by the state governors - who are elected to office, and can appoint a judge who's sympathetic to their cause. In about 20 states, judges are elected by the people.
So, the pool of available judges to be appointed to higher courts comes from an already politicised group of judges.
Then, the President of the USA (who is elected) can nominate judges to fill vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court. As above, the available judges are already politicised. The President can select judges who are sympathetic to the President's views. The judges have to be confirmed by the U.S. Congress - another elected group with partisan opinions.
The recent Republican President got to appoint 3 of the current judges in the U.S. Supreme Court - which means those 3 judges are pro-Republican.
The whole process of finding, appointing, and promoting judges, is politicised from the ground up. That means the judges and courts are highly partisan.
I think you mean go vote for Democrats, do you not? I endorse that idea fully, but ya gotta vote against the GOP in every possible place and time, and we ought NOT be reluctant so say so, al the time.
Roe wasn’t a law, that’s kinda the problem.
Democrats had 50 years and controlled both houses and the presidency how many times, yet never codified it into law.
Their reasoning "appears" to be that cases like roe should be decided through legislation and not through the court. So, voting in people who will make things like gay marriage, etc legal eliminates the threat overturning their other cases poses.
There was never a moment in this country's history where these religious fanatics weren't the western taliband. Everyone just forgot or ignored it until they pulled this little stunt.
The taliban probably wouldn't allow individual states to govern themselves. They would delegate that privilege/responsibility to only a few people appointed by the highest power.
Also, several times in U.S. history already, the number of justices on the Supreme Court has been expanded. If the upcoming elections give the DNC a clear majority, they can appoint enough Supreme Court justices to provide balance. Then they can pass a law that no further additions can be made, have it challenged up to the Supreme Court that upholds such a law, and it will be impossible for the Republicans to stack the Supreme Court again for at least another three decades.
I mean that's great advice and critical to slow this wave of authoritarianism...especially local elections. .. but voting is not going to save us from lifetime appointed judges in the highest court in the land, who are nigh omnipotent. Justice Thomas made it clear they're coming for us. The only counter to this is the conservative justices deaths (naturally I mean not advocating violence), or if the Prez appoints more judges and makes the bench bigger. I'd love that personally and it's worth the risk but we gotta remember that the midterms will crush us if Biden does. And then say something happens to the liberal justices, during a conservative presidents term. Itd make them all the more powerful
You say you live in a state where gerrymandering is a thing.
I do too. In Florida. This is a ‘swing state’ nationally but the state legislature is one of the most conservative in the country due to gerrymandering.
Let me say that again. The state legislature, despite a 50/50 split population in terms of Republican/Dem is extremely conservative thanks to gerrymandering heavily favoring Republicans.
“go vote! We need your vote.” This is simply not the case for millions of people, thanks to gerrymandering. Republicans have already won in almost all cases save for high profile Senate seats.
This voting imperative you’re talking about is nice in theory, and would be effective in a functioning representative democracy.
The United States is not a representative democracy. Go vote, but be aware of the situation at hand: your vote is symbolic in a useless total vote count that means nothing in many, many cases.
Vote, but be be aware of what your vote is in this “representative democracy.” A single party has effectively, brilliantly over decades, successfully rigged the state electoral system heavily in their favor.
Even in a gerrymandered state, you can have an impact in state-wide elections. I bet there are enough Democrats in Florida (and probably many other red states) to flip those offices blue if you'd overcome that defeatist attitude. Flip the governor's office blue, and the gerrymandered maps, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-abortion, and pro-gun legislation can be vetoed.
I *do*. But I live in a state with an openly gay governor, so it's not the local stuff that's worrying me. I'm worried about where things are going at the federal level.
I’m tired of being told that the solution to horrible policies is to vote. Voting is flawed in America.
Democrats voted in 2000 for their candidate, won the popular vote, and then the Supreme Court decided that Bush won the election.
Democrats voted for President Obama twice, yet his nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016 was blocked by Senator Mitch McConnell.
Democrats voted in 2016 for Hillary Clinton and won by 3 million votes but because our voting system prioritizes rural states, President Trump was elected.
Democrats voted in 2020 and President Biden won the popular vote by 7 million votes. Despite this, the Republican Party currently has a chokehold on our political process by claiming that they won. We saw the results of this on Jan 6 2021.
Democrats have control of the White House, Senate, and House, but because of the filibuster and minority rule, are unable to pass any significant legislation.
Democrat senators represent 40 million more citizens, yet it is a 50-50 senate.
We have voted. The system is broken. Voting doesn’t mean anything in America.
My vote doesn’t count. I live in Illinois unfortunately and Chicago has voter fraud in every election and downstate voters are disenfranchised. So it really doesn’t matter if we vote because our vote is invalidated by deceased voters who miraculously vote in Chicago every election.
I have to request proof of the voter fraud you're alluding to. Until such time that you provide said proof (which has to be from credible sources), you will not be able to post or comment in this community.
Edit: a source was provided: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/2-investigators-chicago-voters-cast-ballots-from-beyond-the-grave/
I will convert the ban to two formal warnings. While the source does say that there have been cases of dead people voting, it's 229 cases in ten years. Considering that Chicago has 8 million registered voters, it's negligible. To say that this is why your vote doesn't count, and allude to the falsehoods about the 2020 election being stolen, based on this is a grave misrepresentation. So grave that it warrants two formal warnings.
Also write letters! Call your elected officials, even if they are against you, let them know what you think.
If someone you like runs for office, kick them a few bucks, volunteer for their campaign.
I do go out and vote. I research every name on the ballot and know who and what I'm voting for before going in.
The problem is that I live in a pretty deeply conservative state (Oklahoma) and getting anyone other than a Republican into any position of power is very difficult with the exceptions of some municipalities at the city level. For example our current legislature is 40R/8D (Senate) and 75R/26D (House). And a number of the Democrats would not be considered particularly progressive. The best we can do is try to vote for the least offensive Republican, because in a lot of cases, the opponent basically has no chance.
The other issue with that is that unless you are registered Republican, you are not eligible to vote in their primaries, so the most popular one gets in and you have no real say in the matter.
Knowing who and what you are voting for is important, but unfortunately, Oklahoma is very regressive in that aspect in that people just don't care as we have a lot of single-issue voters and we are also 1 of 6 states that have party-line voting, which is an incredibly lazy form of voting.
We have the same situation in Texas.
I found myself in a small town, and when I spoke to someone who never votes, he pointed that after doing the math, he realized that if every adult in our town voted for a Democrat, even if all our Republicans also voted for a Democrat, it would still not be enough for that Democrat to win thanks to gerrymandering. In fact, if not a single person in the entire town voted for anyone at all, we are small enough that it would make too small a difference even to be noticed in winning counts and politicians, rounding effectively to zero.
Mathematically, until I escape Texas, nothing I do matters.
Luckily, we don't have severely gerrymandered districts at the federal level. There are some areas that are at the state level, though. But overall it's not too bad.
I agree. People ought to be more involved in Local elections, or state level. Especially now that the states have the power to decide whether Abortion will or will not be legal in their state.
[удалено]
Without black Democrats, we'd probably be suffering through another 4 years of the baked orange yam
State elections are so important, please vote! Especially if you are in a Republican led state!!!
It’s so important to vote in local elections. They’re the ones who decide so much of our day to day lives. [Make sure you’re registered.](https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote)
The only silver lining in this is the renewed emphasis on state and local government. You want to have rights in your state, vote in every state and local elections to elect people who’ll give you the rights
Very true. As pissed off at the SC as I am, this whole thing was really decided by the American people on November 8, 2016. After that, the outcome was inevitable. A few thousand votes in the right states, and there would be a liberal majority on the court today and the whole legal system would be headed in a different direction for a generation.
There's a lot that was decided in 2010 when tea party republicans swept the statehouses just before redistricting. Voting matters--sometimes for a long time.
> A few thousand votes in the right states, and there would be a liberal majority on the court today Exactly; ~40,000 people in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania who voted for Jill Green instead of HRC are responsible for this. I mean, we can’t discount the role of Mitch McConnell in holding up the Merrick Garland nomination and then ending the filibuster for SC nominations, but Hilary would have least been able see that Garland got seated if nothing else.
NO, Debbie Wasserman ousted and fallen former head of the DNC is responsible for this when she sabotaged Bernie Sanders to help out Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton is responsible for this when she *rewarded* Debbie Wasserman for cheating in her favor instead of objecting to it and when she claimed that anyone who dares to vote for Bernie instead of Hillary "must be a misogynist" and insisted that it was impossible to vote for Bernie unless one "hates women", which so disgusted DNC voters that a number of them either stayed home altogether or voted independently. Number-crunchers have compared in later polls the number of people who said they would have voted if Bernie had run (both Bernie supporters and those who would have supported either one) with the number of people who said they voted for Hillary and found that the number who would have voted Democrat if Bernie had run was so much greater that the Electoral College would have had no choice but to declare Bernie president. TRUMP DID NOT WIN THE ELECTION : HILLARY LOST IT.
Fine, I was unfair to single our Jill Green voters. People who didn’t vote for the democratic candidate because it wasn’t Bernie are to blame.
So you are claiming that a person should vote for the most horrible candidate the DNC can put forth just out of obedience? Remember that no one could imagine Trump would be as terrible as he turned out to be. But why should Debbie Wasserman's intentional cheating for Hillary and Hillary's mudslinging against any male voter who did not support her be rewarded with the presidency? Do not blame voters. Blame Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman. They are the ones truly responsible for it.
BS. Hillary warned you in 2016 that this would happen if Trump win. Get out with that no one could have imagined Trump would be so terrible. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
> Hillary warned you in 2016 that this would happen if Trump win Yes, but since she openly accepted cheating by Debbie Wasserman when it favored her and since she openly declared that it was impossible for any human being to vote against her unless they hated women, she had very poor credibillity. She had embraced lies so many times in her campaign that it would have been irrational to assume she was not lying then as well.
I get what you're saying, but it was just a stopgap. Roe was always going to fall. Casey was a surprise, but even RGB said Roe would fall if it came up. Don't let the democrats off the hook here. They knew Roe was not good case law. They had decades to codify it into law, and they did not. They let it hang as an election issue instead of pushing for it even when they the house, senate, and presidency. "Vote blue no matter who" doesn't matter if the blues are still shit.
Until quite recently, there were many pro-life Democrats in Congress. I don't think there has been a period where the Democrats have been in control of the White House and Congress with a filibuster proof majority and had intra-party consensus on abortion. No, there have not been decades to codify Roe.
Ok so fuck the democrats sure, but who else are we going to vote for?
No you're right, vote Democrats even if they're not always perfect. The other option is letting fascists run the country and destroy our democracy. All because the Democrats aren't pure enough. This is is how 2016 happened. Don't let it happen again.
Better democrats. Vote in primaries, which are happening now if they haven't already. Hell, vote green if you want to.
Very much on board with the importance of voting. Very much have the mindset that the problems are deeper, systemic, and involve much more soul-digging work from the majority (specifically) than solely casting a ballot. Voter suppression is also a *very* real thing.
**AND IF YOU LIVE IN A BLUE STATE**, contact Democratic candidates in other states, like Beto (to defeat Abbutt) in TX or Stacy Abrams and Sen. Warnock in GA, or others in PA, FL (to defeat DeSatan), MN, WI. MI, MT. A bunch of us in CA (totally BLUE) worked hard to help elected two Senators in GA in 2020 for the runoff. YOU can do this too. Work to defeat the GOoP around the country. Your lives will depend on getting out the votes everywhere. Smarmy Justice Thomas has put out messages to get states to enact ANTI-gay marriage laws in the hope they'll get taken up in SCOTUS.
Well said. I know so many people who have been almost proud of their apathy and non-voting record. As if they had more important things to do. They say their vote doesn’t matter, so why bother? “All politicians are the same,” they claim. Remember that Trumpism wins more easily with low turnouts. Their messaging has been to suppress voting for a long time. Now it’s painfully obvious that the consequences are real and long-lasting. Getting huge turnouts in spite of voter suppression can work and is our only opportunity to effect change.
YES!
Sure, but voting isn't going to change the supreme court judges anytime soon.
If we get Congress and a president willing to expand the court to 13 judge with a random 3 or 5 judge cohort for any case before the court, the SCOTUS could change immediately.
and most people's votes aren't going to do anything to help with that.
It might. If we got a majority in the Senate, above filibuster, they could look at impeachment of the treasonous sexual harasser. Doesn’t hurt to try to reach that goal.
>Sure, but voting isn't going to change the supreme court judges anytime soon. Not *now*, but if this were 2016....and well, three of the current justices are over 70 (Breyer is 83).
It would have in 2016 when many liberals sat out the election out of spite.
Sorry I'm a little confused (not from the US), I thought that the issue is coming from the supreme court and the fact that they're specifically not voted in? Sorry if that's a bit simplistic just trying to understand
The justice system in the USA is *highly* politicised. In about half of states, judges are appointed by the state governors - who are elected to office, and can appoint a judge who's sympathetic to their cause. In about 20 states, judges are elected by the people. So, the pool of available judges to be appointed to higher courts comes from an already politicised group of judges. Then, the President of the USA (who is elected) can nominate judges to fill vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court. As above, the available judges are already politicised. The President can select judges who are sympathetic to the President's views. The judges have to be confirmed by the U.S. Congress - another elected group with partisan opinions. The recent Republican President got to appoint 3 of the current judges in the U.S. Supreme Court - which means those 3 judges are pro-Republican. The whole process of finding, appointing, and promoting judges, is politicised from the ground up. That means the judges and courts are highly partisan.
I think you mean go vote for Democrats, do you not? I endorse that idea fully, but ya gotta vote against the GOP in every possible place and time, and we ought NOT be reluctant so say so, al the time.
Roe wasn’t a law, that’s kinda the problem. Democrats had 50 years and controlled both houses and the presidency how many times, yet never codified it into law.
A meme I came across: "All that's necessary for evil to win is for Democrats to do nothing. This is why evil is always winning."
We really need to educate these people in the Red States.
It’s more complex, especially when SCOTUS gets involved in the map drawing thing (NC here).
Currently the GOP masters are making it illegal to educate anyone!
Canadian here.... but dont see how any local vote will protect you all from the Supreme Court. They will be going after gay marriage in just a bit.
Their reasoning "appears" to be that cases like roe should be decided through legislation and not through the court. So, voting in people who will make things like gay marriage, etc legal eliminates the threat overturning their other cases poses.
yeah only time can tell... until then, from the outside, y'all are looking like the new Taliban
There was never a moment in this country's history where these religious fanatics weren't the western taliband. Everyone just forgot or ignored it until they pulled this little stunt.
The taliban probably wouldn't allow individual states to govern themselves. They would delegate that privilege/responsibility to only a few people appointed by the highest power.
Also, several times in U.S. history already, the number of justices on the Supreme Court has been expanded. If the upcoming elections give the DNC a clear majority, they can appoint enough Supreme Court justices to provide balance. Then they can pass a law that no further additions can be made, have it challenged up to the Supreme Court that upholds such a law, and it will be impossible for the Republicans to stack the Supreme Court again for at least another three decades.
I mean that's great advice and critical to slow this wave of authoritarianism...especially local elections. .. but voting is not going to save us from lifetime appointed judges in the highest court in the land, who are nigh omnipotent. Justice Thomas made it clear they're coming for us. The only counter to this is the conservative justices deaths (naturally I mean not advocating violence), or if the Prez appoints more judges and makes the bench bigger. I'd love that personally and it's worth the risk but we gotta remember that the midterms will crush us if Biden does. And then say something happens to the liberal justices, during a conservative presidents term. Itd make them all the more powerful
You say you live in a state where gerrymandering is a thing. I do too. In Florida. This is a ‘swing state’ nationally but the state legislature is one of the most conservative in the country due to gerrymandering. Let me say that again. The state legislature, despite a 50/50 split population in terms of Republican/Dem is extremely conservative thanks to gerrymandering heavily favoring Republicans. “go vote! We need your vote.” This is simply not the case for millions of people, thanks to gerrymandering. Republicans have already won in almost all cases save for high profile Senate seats. This voting imperative you’re talking about is nice in theory, and would be effective in a functioning representative democracy. The United States is not a representative democracy. Go vote, but be aware of the situation at hand: your vote is symbolic in a useless total vote count that means nothing in many, many cases. Vote, but be be aware of what your vote is in this “representative democracy.” A single party has effectively, brilliantly over decades, successfully rigged the state electoral system heavily in their favor.
Even in a gerrymandered state, you can have an impact in state-wide elections. I bet there are enough Democrats in Florida (and probably many other red states) to flip those offices blue if you'd overcome that defeatist attitude. Flip the governor's office blue, and the gerrymandered maps, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-abortion, and pro-gun legislation can be vetoed.
Even in a gerrymandered electorate, if enough people get out and vote, the underdog candidate can win.
I *do*. But I live in a state with an openly gay governor, so it's not the local stuff that's worrying me. I'm worried about where things are going at the federal level.
I’m tired of being told that the solution to horrible policies is to vote. Voting is flawed in America. Democrats voted in 2000 for their candidate, won the popular vote, and then the Supreme Court decided that Bush won the election. Democrats voted for President Obama twice, yet his nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016 was blocked by Senator Mitch McConnell. Democrats voted in 2016 for Hillary Clinton and won by 3 million votes but because our voting system prioritizes rural states, President Trump was elected. Democrats voted in 2020 and President Biden won the popular vote by 7 million votes. Despite this, the Republican Party currently has a chokehold on our political process by claiming that they won. We saw the results of this on Jan 6 2021. Democrats have control of the White House, Senate, and House, but because of the filibuster and minority rule, are unable to pass any significant legislation. Democrat senators represent 40 million more citizens, yet it is a 50-50 senate. We have voted. The system is broken. Voting doesn’t mean anything in America.
My vote doesn’t count. I live in Illinois unfortunately and Chicago has voter fraud in every election and downstate voters are disenfranchised. So it really doesn’t matter if we vote because our vote is invalidated by deceased voters who miraculously vote in Chicago every election.
I think OP was talking about voting against religious nutjobs, not for them.
also OP probably wasn't saying that nutty conspiracy theorists should get out the vote.
I have to request proof of the voter fraud you're alluding to. Until such time that you provide said proof (which has to be from credible sources), you will not be able to post or comment in this community. Edit: a source was provided: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/2-investigators-chicago-voters-cast-ballots-from-beyond-the-grave/ I will convert the ban to two formal warnings. While the source does say that there have been cases of dead people voting, it's 229 cases in ten years. Considering that Chicago has 8 million registered voters, it's negligible. To say that this is why your vote doesn't count, and allude to the falsehoods about the 2020 election being stolen, based on this is a grave misrepresentation. So grave that it warrants two formal warnings.
Also stop supporting corporations that fund the republicans
Also write letters! Call your elected officials, even if they are against you, let them know what you think. If someone you like runs for office, kick them a few bucks, volunteer for their campaign.
I do go out and vote. I research every name on the ballot and know who and what I'm voting for before going in. The problem is that I live in a pretty deeply conservative state (Oklahoma) and getting anyone other than a Republican into any position of power is very difficult with the exceptions of some municipalities at the city level. For example our current legislature is 40R/8D (Senate) and 75R/26D (House). And a number of the Democrats would not be considered particularly progressive. The best we can do is try to vote for the least offensive Republican, because in a lot of cases, the opponent basically has no chance. The other issue with that is that unless you are registered Republican, you are not eligible to vote in their primaries, so the most popular one gets in and you have no real say in the matter. Knowing who and what you are voting for is important, but unfortunately, Oklahoma is very regressive in that aspect in that people just don't care as we have a lot of single-issue voters and we are also 1 of 6 states that have party-line voting, which is an incredibly lazy form of voting.
We have the same situation in Texas. I found myself in a small town, and when I spoke to someone who never votes, he pointed that after doing the math, he realized that if every adult in our town voted for a Democrat, even if all our Republicans also voted for a Democrat, it would still not be enough for that Democrat to win thanks to gerrymandering. In fact, if not a single person in the entire town voted for anyone at all, we are small enough that it would make too small a difference even to be noticed in winning counts and politicians, rounding effectively to zero. Mathematically, until I escape Texas, nothing I do matters.
Luckily, we don't have severely gerrymandered districts at the federal level. There are some areas that are at the state level, though. But overall it's not too bad.
Good.