Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kalbear Total Landscaping

US Politics: Ruthless ambition

Recommended Posts

The other thing when you're discussing turnout is that your entire system is set up around convincing the other sides voters to stay home, or outright trying to prevent them from voting. Your voting is on a weekday that prevents many people from taking part on the day without a financial consequence many can't afford, in many locations there are insufficient voting locations for the number of people resulting in extensive delays to vote. I would classify this as an issue with the system that depresses the vote turnout rather than something parties are failing to do to appeal to voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Re: bolded, citation needed.  This is circular reasoning, they didn't vote, so they are unlikely to vote, so we shouldn't try to get them to vote.

No, the reasoning is that despite literally billions of dollars attempting to get them to vote via outreach they didn't vote and are thus unlikely to vote with more outreach. They may need other things - less of a barrier to vote, less difficulty, more time to vote, a holiday to vote - but outreach is not likely to get them to vote.

At this point for the most part I don't think we can say that we haven't tried outreach. If you want more people to vote, you need to make other things happen. As an example, King County in WA is looking to have 90%+ turnout of eligible voters. They can try to do this by a combination of outreach, transparency, removing as many barriers as possible and giving people as many options as possible. But 'outreach' wasn't nearly as effective as having 100% vote by mail, and outreach wasn't nearly as effective as removing postage requirements and adding drop boxes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes 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.

 

2 minutes ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

I see you don't actually have an argument.

What you posted isn't an argument. It's a nihilistic whine that doesn't bother to make a point. To have such a view of voting reeks of privilege and condescension. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I would classify this as an issue with the system that depresses the vote turnout rather than something parties are failing to do to appeal to voters.

Yep, the reason for the US' low turnout is not because the American citizenry is dumb, and Kal is right that there's plenty of outreach devoted to trying to turnout voters - I don't, btw, think that should stop.  The turnout is quite obviously due to the system encouraging political apathy among its people in a wide variety of ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 was taking to my dad about this last weekend. I am sure there is still a path for Trump to cobble together a win here, I wouldn’t be all shocked by that. But I just feel in my gut that he has not won over many n00bs during his presidency and that he’s going to lose more voters than he gains vs. 2016. My dad, who gets ALL of his info from FOX believes in a hidden cache of Trump voters, that the polls are biased, that people are not being honest in them, and that Trump will enjoy a blowout victory. I guess some of that might be true, but talking purely gut level here - I really don’t see it.  I might be blinded by my distaste for Trump, but I cannot picture these hordes of the converted who did not already vote for him the first time. The fact that he’s tied in a place that he won by 9 and outright losing in several other 2016 states that he won should serve as evidence that this is true, but since 2016 it’s now impossible to convince a conservative person of anything using a poll.

its like the Washington Generals beat the Harlem Globetrotters one time in 1989 and now Generals fans everywhere are convinced they are the better team and clear fan favorites no matter what the spread is.

I don’t think this RBG (God rest her soul) / SC fiasco is going to move the needle too much in terms of galvanizing support behind Trump. At this point I think the debates are the last real hurdle and even they probably won’t move the needle too much barring a disastrous performance by Biden. Note that I don’t think a disastrous performance by Trump will sway any of his voters at the 11th hour. Biden just needs to be serviceable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Week said:

 

What you posted isn't an argument. It's a nihilistic whine that doesn't bother to make a point. To have such a view of voting reeks of privilege and condescension. 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Edited by Gertrude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...