US Politics: Ruthless ambition

[A True Kaniggit]

3 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

It is an argument.  It makes the point that non-voting is a perfectly rational decision and has nothing to with being "dumb".  A person who says their vote doesn't matter is correct.  The person who says their vote matters is incorrect.

 

Yep. I remember the results of the last election. 

0-0. Because no one voted. 

[Guest]

This is the real deep state (NYT limited clicks).

Quote

It would have been a dangerous assertion in the middle of a deadly pandemic no matter where it came from: that wearing masks has “little to no medical value” and could do more “harm” than wearing no mask at all.

But it was especially remarkable given the source. Published on the right-wing website RedState, it turned out to have been written under a pseudonym by William B. Crews, a public affairs officer at the National Institutes of Health, promoting the same type of discredited information about dealing with the virus that his employer was working aggressively to beat back.

Mr. Crews abruptly retired from the N.I.H. as The Daily Beast prepared to expose his clandestine role as purveyor of misinformation. But by that point, writing for RedState under the name Streiff, Mr. Crews had published a slew of incorrect claims about this virus this year, some even directly attacking his boss, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

RedState troll found to work for the NIH. I have often kept tabs on RedState, ever since the Tea Party days to keep an eye on the id of the Republican party. "Streiff" was a regular contributor who was fairly reasonable (for RedState) and was anti-Trump until he drank the Kool-Aid and went off the deep end. That guy was a Grade-A bootlicking fascist. Good fucking riddance.

[S John]

1 hour ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Voting only matters in aggregate.  Anyone who decides that on a individual level voting matters is the dumb one.  People that vote do so because society spends a lot of time brainwashing them to do so.

It will be a very disappointing aggregate without individuals.

[Gertrude]

24 minutes ago, S John said:

Just saw on Fox that recent Iowa and Georgia polls have the candidates tied. Considering that Trump won Iowa by 9 points and Georgia by 5, that’s like, bad news if you are Trump right?

I saw a poll that had Greenfield up 3 points over Ernst - statistical tie, I know but still. We have only 6 votes to give, but every bit helps, right? I also read that this Iowa race is the second most expensive in the country right now and we're a cheap media market. The amount of ads are insane, and they are all negative. I think I remember seeing one positive ad for Greenfield, but it was debunking the Ernst negative ad and not stating what she was standing for. Seriously, I don't remember a season with so many negative ads before.

I honestly don't know how Iowa is going to go. I live in eastern Iowa which is more blue than the western part. So while my gut says that Greenfield could eke this out, I think it's just my regional bias and hopeful thinking. Tossing a coin would probably be more accurate. 

[Lollygag]

Other reasons folks may not vote:

• Entirely too many confuse politics as a substitute for entertainment and find it deficient. They're looking for an emotional high or excitement and if they don't get that emotional hit, they're not interested. Voting is seen as emotional fulfillment, not duty.
• Terrible attention spans.
• Some are genuinely very busy. (FYI - information blow-out, contradicting information, being busy and being stressed are used as a type of voter suppression).
• Being informed to vote from the president on down can be daunting. Media coverage is confusing in that it's either junk news or pick-a-side in a war coverage. They'd rather not deal with it and voting is facing how uninformed they are and it's uncomfortable.
• News is configured to get ratings so it tends to be jacked up to 11 which some people find emotionally stressful so they check out.
• The two-party system forces too many to choose between candidates who aren't great fits.
• They find choosing down-ballot and local candidates intimidating from lack of information.
• 60% of Americans now believe a third party is needed

I used to be an independent swing voter before Republicans became batshit insane. Researching the whole ballot to make an informed decision took literally all day. I admit it's a lot easier now that even a vote for a Republican at the lowest local level is subsidizing Trumpism, but if neither party is a good fit, that's a big extra burden.

 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

It is an argument.  It makes the point that non-voting is a perfectly rational decision and has nothing to with being "dumb".

The is correct in terms of the Downsian calculus of voting - V = pB - C + D - where V is the probability of voting, p is the probability your vote matters (meaning consequential), B is the "benefit" in terms your preferred candidate winning compared to her challenger(s), C is the cost (time/effort) of voting, and D is a nebulous term generally described as "duty."  Downs did not include the D term in his original conception, it was only added by Riker and Ordeshook a decade later.  This is crucial, because pB is virtually always going to be outweighed by C, making voting irrational.  It's up to an individual's own belief in citizen duty to make up that difference and get them to vote.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

If you wanna compare nonvoters to Democratic voters, or nonvoters to Republican voters, sure that's interesting.  But by claiming "a plurality" doesn't vote because you're splitting up voters into two parties that split the voting population basically in half is simply disingenuous.  Consider the implications.  Let's say, a country has 75% turnout - good but not great.  But also has a multiparty system of five evenly matched parties.  Then, you could say that nonvoters outnumber the voters of any one party, but that says absolutely nothing about the health of that country's democracy.

But in such a scenario, coalitions would quickly build so that wouldn't be an issue, and we're not talking about a multiparty system here. 

Quote

Because of what I said.  If your assertion is the American electorate's stupidity is causing its descent into authoritarianism or dysfunction (which is quite obviously generated from the institutional makeup of the US system, not the electorate), then solely comparing the US to the most democratic countries in the world is circular logic due to blatant selection bias.  And why is your standard that you can't compare countries with vastly different cultures and histories?  Members of the OECD include Chile, Israel, Turkey, and South Korea - obviously all with vastly different cultures and histories.  Should they be disqualified?  Moreover, the United States has significant differences in culture and history than even all western European countries depending on what "differences" you're looking at.

What I would look for first and foremost would be countries with multi-generational histories that didn't include the occasional overthrow of their governments my authoritarian regimes. Remember, "it can't happen here" is part of the this equation. 

[Lord of Rhinos]

37 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

The my-one-vote-doesn't-matter position is really just an excuse for not wanting to put up the effort to vote or about your vote not inevitably resulting in you getting your own way and pouting about it.

Some don't vote because they just can't accept the ego hit of being a drop of water in an ocean. They're kings or queens in their own mind and don't like being reminded otherwise.

Sure, a lot of people are just lazy but that doesn't mean they are wrong. Obviously, the easiest way to deal with this is by making voting as easy as possible (as discussed up thread).

It is pretty funny you bring ego into it though.  Obviously, the people voting because they think their votes matter are the egotistical ones.

3 minutes ago, S John said:

It will be a very disappointing aggregate without individuals.

 

That'd lead to votes actually mattering, which would be ironic.

[Fury Resurrected]

3 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Sure, a lot of people are just lazy but that doesn't mean they are wrong. Obviously, the easiest way to deal with this is by making voting as easy as possible (as discussed up thread).

It is pretty funny you bring ego into it though.  Obviously, the people voting because they think their votes matter are the egotistical ones.

 

That'd lead to votes actually mattering, which would be ironic.

May I ask after your demographics here?

Because if voting didn’t matter, there wouldn’t be so goddamn much active voter suppression. But, since that mostly happens to BIPOC, it isn’t something that comes up in this conversation when led by your average fan of the Joe Rogan podcast.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

But in such a scenario, coalitions would quickly build so that wouldn't be an issue, and we're not talking about a multiparty system here. 

So?  It still would be misleading to suggest there's a link between having more nonvoters than any and all political parties in a given country causes an unhealthy democracy, because it doesn't.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What I would look for first and foremost would be countries with multi-generational histories that didn't include the occasional overthrow of their governments my authoritarian regimes. Remember, "it can't happen here" is part of the this equation. 

So, what does this mean for your assertion?  That citizens in countries that include the occasional overthrow by authoritarian regimes are too stupid to be included?  That Americans are dumber than other countries with multi-generational democracies because they voted for Donald Trump (except they didn't)?  These seem to be self-fulfilling hypotheses.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Hi Fury, I'm a white male. 

I said voting in aggregate matters.  Clearly, systemic voter suppression is going to matter which is why the GOP is pursuing it and why voter registration drives are also a thing.  Reducing barriers to voting obviously helps with aggregate turn out.  I vote because my state has made it exceptionally easy to do so.  If I lived somewhere where I had to wait four hours on a particular day to vote I don't know that I would.

I've never listened to Joe Rogan but if he talks about votes not mattering he has a large enough platform that he could potentially alter the aggregate which is way normally celebrities encourage voting.

[S John]

20 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

We have only 6 votes to give, but every bit helps, right? 

ANYTHING. I have had yet to consider Iowa as an option for being blue while messing around with my little 270towin maps. I’m no expert on polling, or really politics in general, but I know a thing or two about maps and arithmetic and there are not too many plausible paths to victory for Trump. There is certainly a path, but the map favors Biden. So anyway, I’ll take anything. Anywhere that can be made competitive decreases Trumps chances. I don’t care where the flips happen, but with so many of his 2016 states in play I can’t see him holding across the board. 

[Lollygag]

5 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Sure, a lot of people are just lazy but that doesn't mean they are wrong. Obviously, the easiest way to deal with this is by making voting as easy as possible (as discussed up thread).

It is pretty funny you bring ego into it though.  Obviously, the people voting because they think their votes matter are the egotistical ones.

This is the well I'm rubber and you're glue response. FYI - ego isn't bad in itself. I qualified the term as seeing themselves as kings and queens in their own minds and not liking to be reminded of that. My vote matters but I don't think that the *only* way my vote counts is for me to get my own way every time. I'm a drop in an ocean. I'm cool with that. Gotta get together with the other drops. That's the point.

You're putting a lot of time into trying to convince yourselves and others to not vote and from the way you come across, this isn't the only time you've thought of or voiced this opinion. From just a time-management position, it's less time to pop off a ballot application, fill in the easier elections like pres and senators and return it. So this isn't about time. Even if you think your vote doesn't matter, it's still quicker to just do it. So this is about something else.

Again - YOU WILL NOT GET YOUR WAY EVERY TIME YOU VOTE. You aren't king of the world. Welcome to being an adult. It sucks sometimes.

 

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

Other reasons folks may not vote:

• Entirely too many confuse politics as a substitute for entertainment and find it deficient. They're looking for an emotional high or excitement and if they don't get that emotional hit, they're not interested. Voting is seen as emotional fulfillment, not duty.
• Being informed to vote from the president on down can be daunting. Media coverage is confusing in that it's either junk news or pick-a-side in a war coverage. They'd rather not deal with it and voting is facing how uninformed they are and it's uncomfortable.

I think these two in particular are worth calling out and expanding on. For the first I think I'd also add that your election campaigns are so damn long that it plays into this dynamic - when there is always an election campaign, or a primary campaign or a shadow primary campaign going on there is "content" for news organizations to cover...permanently. This lets the coverage of an election campaign change from a rare occurrence to something that is a permanent staple in many peoples entertainment diet. Our campaigns in Aus are starting to get longer, but that's more of a movement from 6 weeks to a few months, its nothing like the permanent fixture of US electoral coverage. We do still get plenty of other political coverage on a permanent basis that forms a part of entertainment, but its not quite the same thing of the breathless election coverage.

On the second point - I think its a combination of just how many things you vote on in the US and that its all bundled up onto the one election day. The amount of ballot papers are overwhelming and some of them are really not straight forward. We have a very simple House of Reps ballot paper here, and then a much larger and seemingly complex Senate one but with what we call "above the line" voting it can still be completed trivially. And that's all that we do on a federal election day. You could comfortably do your vote in under a minute and be out the door. We have to go in on separate election days for state and local elections, but in each case its still only a couple of ballot papers. By contrast the US has it all stacked up, and for your local elections you've got so many things - judges, coroners, comptrollers (i think?).... It all just adds to the complexity of the process and makes it much harder to feel like you've "done your research" for this particular election and have your vote all figured out.

All these factors combine to deter people from making the effort (which as mentioned can be quite considerable) at personal cost (literal monetary cost and potentially career impacting too) to bother showing up to vote. Your system wants to deter people instead of encouraging as many as possible.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Hi Lollygag,

I'm not trying to convince you or any others not to vote and I've voted in every federal election since I was eligible.  I was disputing the accusation that non-voters are dumb.  I'm just shocked people don't seem to understand how voting in the USA works.  A tremendous amount of time and effort is put into brainwashing the populace to vote because individual votes don't matter.  That's why we have civics lessons, and Hollywood movies, and tell people the lie that their vote matters.

I think the idea of people voting together to make changes is romantic.  And the sheer irrationality of a bunch of people deciding to vote, even though it doesn't matter on an individual level, is what makes it romantic.  I like voting because of that romanticism, but I'm not going to pretend that anyone who doesn't get the same sense of satisfaction is dumb.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I think its a combination of just how many things you vote on in the US and that its all bundled up onto the one election day. The amount of ballot papers are overwhelming and some of them are really not straight forward. We have a very simple House of Reps ballot paper here, and then a much larger and seemingly complex Senate one but with what we call "above the line" voting it can still be completed trivially. And that's all that we do on a federal election day. You could comfortably do your vote in under a minute and be out the door. We have to go in on separate election days for state and local elections, but in each case its still only a couple of ballot papers. By contrast the US has it all stacked up, and for your local elections you've got so many things - judges, coroners, comptrollers (i think?).... It all just adds to the complexity of the process and makes it much harder to feel like you've "done your research" for this particular election and have your vote all figured out.

I don't think the length of ballots/number of contests is much of a problem.  First, ironically, polarization actually helps with this as very few voters ticket-split anymore so you can simply vote down the party line.  Second, most people don't participate in local elections when they're off-cycle, and during presidential and even midterm cycles there's considerable ballot runoff (meaning people just vote for the top contests on the ballot).  Third, a lot of the size of ballots often has to do with a state's direct democracy initiatives.  It is true it takes considerable time to educate oneself on how to vote on such issues, but I hardly think direct democracy is a bad thing.

As for the perpetual campaign though, yes, it is well-founded that that is one of the main factors that feeds into political apathy.

[A True Kaniggit]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't think the length of ballots/number of contests is much of a problem.  First, ironically, polarization actually helps with this as very few voters ticket-split anymore so you can simply vote down the party line.  Second, most people don't participate in local elections when they're off-cycle, and during presidential and even midterm cycles there's considerable ballot runoff (meaning people just vote for the top contests on the ballot).  Third, a lot of the size of ballots often has to do with a state's direct democracy initiatives.  It is true it takes considerable time to educate oneself on how to vote on such issues, but I hardly think direct democracy is a bad thing.

And as I try to point out to people, it is possible to look up what will be on your ballot before Election Day. 

If you don’t want to be overwhelmed in the booth, research everything you’ll be voting on beforehand. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

And as I try to point out to people, it is possible to look up what will be on your ballot before Election Day. 

Also as long as you have internet access, it's very easy to find plenty of sources that will fairly and succinctly describe the candidates' positions - even for down-ballot "nonpartisan" contests.

[karaddin]

Its not about what you can and can't do, its just about whether it would put people off from putting in that effort. I'm suggesting that it would, although I'm freely admitting I don't have data to back that up. I just want to make it clear that I'm not saying its not possible, but it is work.

[Lollygag]

52 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Hi Lollygag,

I'm not trying to convince you or any others not to vote and I've voted in every federal election since I was eligible.  I was disputing the accusation that non-voters are dumb.  I'm just shocked people don't seem to understand how voting in the USA works.  A tremendous amount of time and effort is put into brainwashing the populace to vote because individual votes don't matter.  That's why we have civics lessons, and Hollywood movies, and tell people the lie that their vote matters.

I think the idea of people voting together to make changes is romantic.  And the sheer irrationality of a bunch of people deciding to vote, even though it doesn't matter on an individual level, is what makes it romantic.  I like voting because of that romanticism, but I'm not going to pretend that anyone who doesn't get the same sense of satisfaction is dumb.

Hi there.

I don't see where anyone said non-voters are dumb but you said people who do vote are dumb.

Your statements contradict. Telling people that their votes don't matter is the same as telling them they shouldn't vote. Voter suppression 101.

4 hours ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

Voting only matters in aggregate.  Anyone who decides that on a individual level voting matters is the dumb one.  People that vote do so because society spends a lot of time brainwashing them to do so.

3 hours ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

And yet those positions are also not determined by one vote.

3 hours ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

It is an argument.  It makes the point that non-voting is a perfectly rational decision and has nothing to with being "dumb".  A person who says their vote doesn't matter is correct.  The person who says their vote matters is incorrect.

Again - just being upset that you or those who are like-minded aren't the one(s) guaranteed to decide the outcome.