5 ms·

Maybe this is or isn't non-partisan, but here's a shot: I'm 25 years old. I've never voted and never will vote as long as there is a two party system. There has

Maybe this is or isn't non-partisan, but here's a shot: I'm 25 years old. I've never voted and never will vote as long as there is a two party system. There has never been a situation where I can agree with either party or individual enough to support them in an election. How do you intend to get people like me to vote? Also, if you did you get everyone to vote, wouldn't every vote turn in to a popularity contest? In other words, why wouldn't every candidate attempt to win their elections by appealing to the lowest common denominator?

sqeaky 10y ago
People like you are quite rare. Most people will vote for the lesser of two evils once they hit some level of disgust. If you read their methodology, they are trying to reach a large group first. I seems someone as rare as you doesn't matter when thousands of easy votes are still out there. Even then they may fix something else on the way to voter turnout of 80% or 90% that may be appealing to you.
Retric 10y ago
Voting for 3rd party's often has a larger impact than voting for the top 2 party's. Remember in a 2 party system each side wants to minimize the perceived differences. But, if a 3rd party gains support one of the major party's will generally add those ideas to the platform. Most recently is probably Libertarian > Tea Party. Not that they really had much impact, but people paid lip-service to the ideas.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > Remember in a 2 party system each side wants to minimize the perceived differences. I don't know that I agree. In practice, it's hardly happening (look at the Republicans and Democrats; at Trump and Clinton), and I don't see why it would happen.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Trump and Clinton are basically still at the primary stage where people have actual choices. You can expect a push to center fairly soon. They don't want to give voters issue whiplash so they generally transition though to more centrist message. Ideally candidates want to avoid alienating their base, but they also can't pick up more voters by pandering to them. So, everyone tries to appeal to independents and not energize their opponents base. The other strategy to to fight dirty which tends to suppress voter turnout, but that can easily backfire in a presidential election. This also often results in coded language. Which lets you target messages to people that care about an issue without generally annoying other people.
- darpa_escapee 10y ago
  If you vote Socialist or Tea Party, the Democrats / Republicans lost your vote and have the stats to back it up. Even if you disagree with the system, vote for whoever is most aligned with your values. Someone will want your vote and your decision may impact future campaigns.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > If you vote Socialist or Tea Party, the Democrats / Republicans lost your vote and have the stats to back it up. The Tea Party isn't an actual party that fields candidates, its a right-wing grassroots (or astroturf, depending on who you listen to) organization that mostly backs Republican candidates, and mostly serves to push the Republicans on certain issues. If you vote for a Tea Party-backed candidates, a Republican has won your vote, not lost it.
burkaman 10y ago
>wouldn't every candidate attempt to win their elections by appealing to the lowest common denominator? I think that's sort of how democracy is supposed to work. Politicians win when they can convince more people than anyone else. It's like that famous quote: “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. Yes, everything would be better if countries were run by benevolent geniuses who always implemented the right policies even if they weren't popular. But failing that impossible paradise, democracy is the best option. And if only some people vote, and everyone knows in advance roughly who is going to vote, democracy won't work as well. The government should reflect all the people it serves.
- Retric 10y ago
  One of the more interesting ideas I have rarely seen in fiction is an actual benevolent and wise AI taking over. Closest is probably the Culture novels which shows up as a very odd society.
  - Aloha 10y ago
    a wise and benevolent AI would likely do things unwise for the long term survival of humanity
    - __s 10y ago
      But that'd contradict the 0th law of robotics
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    It's basically the theme of Asimov's later works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Daneel_Olivaw#The_Foundation_Series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Daneel_Olivaw#The_Foundatio...
  - DrScump 10y ago
    Check out the Twilight Zone episode "The Old Man in the Cave" for one example.
- 10y ago
maxerickson 10y ago
Government should be aiming to hit the lowest common denominator. It's a tragedy that candidates get 51% of the votes (representing 25% of the electorate) and then start blubbering about their mandate.
ggggtez 10y ago
So, you're asking if democracy is a popularity contest? Are you suggesting it's not?
scottkduncan 10y ago
If you are interested in political participation one place to start would be state and local races - you are more likely to find unconventional candidates at those levels that don't fit neatly with either party. I also find it much more plausible that a third party would make inroads at the state and local level and build momentum from there, rather than a third party candidate emerging out of nowhere and taking the presidency outright.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > I also find it much more plausible that a third party would make inroads at the state and local level and build momentum from there, rather than a third party candidate emerging out of nowhere and taking the presidency outright. For example, and independent in Vermont could become a mayor, then Governor, then Senator, and then have a shot at the White House.
danieltillett 10y ago
Stop voting for someone and start voting against someone. Pick the least worst candidate and give them your vote.
- hueving 10y ago
  It's sort of the train switch moral question. If you hate them both but hate one slight more, voting for the lesser hated one makes you morally responsible for the shit they cause in some peoples' view (as opposed to being a bystander).
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    No by not voting you are implicitly giving them half a vote each. You don't get to opt out of the decision of who wins by not voting.
    - choward 10y ago
      Let's say hypothetically your two options to vote for have the same motives but take different stances on relatively unimportant issues. The issues that actually matter aren't discussed. The only issues that are discussed are the ones that stir up people's emotions. By voting you are just supporting this system and saying everything is okay. "Oh, look. 90% voter turnout. Everything is great." I'd much rather not have my vote counted then vote for someone I despise. "Hmm, 10% voter turnout. Something must be wrong." Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > I'd much rather not have my vote counted then vote for someone I despise. "Hmm, 10% voter turnout. Something must be wrong." Empirically, low turnout as a signal that something is wrong which provokes some kind of change to correct it doesn't work very well. > Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent. Encouraging people to not vote because eventually that will signal that something is wrong and produce positive change is a lot worse. Vote-for-one voting is still a ranked-preference method, its just one with only two ranks, and a restriction that only one candidate can be put in the first rank. It provides some (though often less than you'd like) input into social decisionmaking. Abstention, in any voting system, is simply expressing absolute indifference between the available options -- it doesn't mean that you dislike them all, you could just like them all equally. It provides no useful signal into social decisionmaking. If you are actually indifferent, that's fine, but signaling indifference when what you really want to say is that you are not indifferent, but also not happy with your choices, is probably not what you want. If you don't like the choices you get at general elections, there are ways to signal that that are far more effective than not voting. (The weakest and most basic of which is voting in primary elections or whatever the equivalent is.)
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Maybe this is or isn't non-partisan, but here's a shot: I'm 25 years old. I've never voted and never will vote as long as there is a two party system. There has never been a situation where I can agree with either party or individual enough to support them in an election. How do you intend to get people like me to vote? In most places in the US, there are plenty of downballot elections, many of which are nonpartisan. There are also ways to be involved in the selection of party nominees (including, but not limited to, party primaries, which are in many places open to both members of the parties and those in no party, and in some places you can vote in primaries irrespective of party. Or, in California -- aside from Presidential elections -- the "primaries" are non-partisan first-round election from which the top two vote-getters proceed.)
- hackuser 10y ago
  > In most places in the US, there are plenty of downballot elections, many of which are nonpartisan I'll add that your vote has much more power in these elections. Usually very few others vote, and the districts are much smaller (your local city council member might have hundreds or thousands of constituents, compared with the President who has 310 million); you vote might be one of several hundred.
hackuser 10y ago
> How do you intend to get people like me to vote? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715896

sqeaky 10y ago

People like you are quite rare. Most people will vote for the lesser of two evils once they hit some level of disgust. If you read their methodology, they are trying to reach a large group first. I seems someone as rare as you doesn't matter when thousands of easy votes are still out there. Even then they may fix something else on the way to voter turnout of 80% or 90% that may be appealing to you.

Retric 10y ago

Voting for 3rd party's often has a larger impact than voting for the top 2 party's. Remember in a 2 party system each side wants to minimize the perceived differences. But, if a 3rd party gains support one of the major party's will generally add those ideas to the platform. Most recently is probably Libertarian > Tea Party. Not that they really had much impact, but people paid lip-service to the ideas.

hackuser 10y ago
> Remember in a 2 party system each side wants to minimize the perceived differences. I don't know that I agree. In practice, it's hardly happening (look at the Republicans and Democrats; at Trump and Clinton), and I don't see why it would happen.
- Retric 10y ago
  Trump and Clinton are basically still at the primary stage where people have actual choices. You can expect a push to center fairly soon. They don't want to give voters issue whiplash so they generally transition though to more centrist message. Ideally candidates want to avoid alienating their base, but they also can't pick up more voters by pandering to them. So, everyone tries to appeal to independents and not energize their opponents base. The other strategy to to fight dirty which tends to suppress voter turnout, but that can easily backfire in a presidential election. This also often results in coded language. Which lets you target messages to people that care about an issue without generally annoying other people.
darpa_escapee 10y ago
If you vote Socialist or Tea Party, the Democrats / Republicans lost your vote and have the stats to back it up. Even if you disagree with the system, vote for whoever is most aligned with your values. Someone will want your vote and your decision may impact future campaigns.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > If you vote Socialist or Tea Party, the Democrats / Republicans lost your vote and have the stats to back it up. The Tea Party isn't an actual party that fields candidates, its a right-wing grassroots (or astroturf, depending on who you listen to) organization that mostly backs Republican candidates, and mostly serves to push the Republicans on certain issues. If you vote for a Tea Party-backed candidates, a Republican has won your vote, not lost it.

burkaman 10y ago

>wouldn't every candidate attempt to win their elections by appealing to the lowest common denominator? I think that's sort of how democracy is supposed to work. Politicians win when they can convince more people than anyone else. It's like that famous quote: “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. Yes, everything would be better if countries were run by benevolent geniuses who always implemented the right policies even if they weren't popular. But failing that impossible paradise, democracy is the best option. And if only some people vote, and everyone knows in advance roughly who is going to vote, democracy won't work as well. The government should reflect all the people it serves.

Retric 10y ago
One of the more interesting ideas I have rarely seen in fiction is an actual benevolent and wise AI taking over. Closest is probably the Culture novels which shows up as a very odd society.
- Aloha 10y ago
  a wise and benevolent AI would likely do things unwise for the long term survival of humanity
  - __s 10y ago
    But that'd contradict the 0th law of robotics
- maxerickson 10y ago
  It's basically the theme of Asimov's later works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Daneel_Olivaw#The_Foundation_Series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Daneel_Olivaw#The_Foundatio...
- DrScump 10y ago
  Check out the Twilight Zone episode "The Old Man in the Cave" for one example.
10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago

Government should be aiming to hit the lowest common denominator. It's a tragedy that candidates get 51% of the votes (representing 25% of the electorate) and then start blubbering about their mandate.

ggggtez 10y ago

So, you're asking if democracy is a popularity contest? Are you suggesting it's not?

scottkduncan 10y ago

If you are interested in political participation one place to start would be state and local races - you are more likely to find unconventional candidates at those levels that don't fit neatly with either party. I also find it much more plausible that a third party would make inroads at the state and local level and build momentum from there, rather than a third party candidate emerging out of nowhere and taking the presidency outright.

hackuser 10y ago
> I also find it much more plausible that a third party would make inroads at the state and local level and build momentum from there, rather than a third party candidate emerging out of nowhere and taking the presidency outright. For example, and independent in Vermont could become a mayor, then Governor, then Senator, and then have a shot at the White House.

danieltillett 10y ago

Stop voting for someone and start voting against someone. Pick the least worst candidate and give them your vote.

hueving 10y ago
It's sort of the train switch moral question. If you hate them both but hate one slight more, voting for the lesser hated one makes you morally responsible for the shit they cause in some peoples' view (as opposed to being a bystander).
- danieltillett 10y ago
  No by not voting you are implicitly giving them half a vote each. You don't get to opt out of the decision of who wins by not voting.
  - choward 10y ago
    Let's say hypothetically your two options to vote for have the same motives but take different stances on relatively unimportant issues. The issues that actually matter aren't discussed. The only issues that are discussed are the ones that stir up people's emotions. By voting you are just supporting this system and saying everything is okay. "Oh, look. 90% voter turnout. Everything is great." I'd much rather not have my vote counted then vote for someone I despise. "Hmm, 10% voter turnout. Something must be wrong." Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > I'd much rather not have my vote counted then vote for someone I despise. "Hmm, 10% voter turnout. Something must be wrong." Empirically, low turnout as a signal that something is wrong which provokes some kind of change to correct it doesn't work very well. > Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent. Encouraging people to not vote because eventually that will signal that something is wrong and produce positive change is a lot worse. Vote-for-one voting is still a ranked-preference method, its just one with only two ranks, and a restriction that only one candidate can be put in the first rank. It provides some (though often less than you'd like) input into social decisionmaking. Abstention, in any voting system, is simply expressing absolute indifference between the available options -- it doesn't mean that you dislike them all, you could just like them all equally. It provides no useful signal into social decisionmaking. If you are actually indifferent, that's fine, but signaling indifference when what you really want to say is that you are not indifferent, but also not happy with your choices, is probably not what you want. If you don't like the choices you get at general elections, there are ways to signal that that are far more effective than not voting. (The weakest and most basic of which is voting in primary elections or whatever the equivalent is.)

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Maybe this is or isn't non-partisan, but here's a shot: I'm 25 years old. I've never voted and never will vote as long as there is a two party system. There has never been a situation where I can agree with either party or individual enough to support them in an election. How do you intend to get people like me to vote? In most places in the US, there are plenty of downballot elections, many of which are nonpartisan. There are also ways to be involved in the selection of party nominees (including, but not limited to, party primaries, which are in many places open to both members of the parties and those in no party, and in some places you can vote in primaries irrespective of party. Or, in California -- aside from Presidential elections -- the "primaries" are non-partisan first-round election from which the top two vote-getters proceed.)

hackuser 10y ago
> In most places in the US, there are plenty of downballot elections, many of which are nonpartisan I'll add that your vote has much more power in these elections. Usually very few others vote, and the districts are much smaller (your local city council member might have hundreds or thousands of constituents, compared with the President who has 310 million); you vote might be one of several hundred.

hackuser 10y ago

> How do you intend to get people like me to vote? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715896