3 ms·

All things equal; doing on voting on weekends would make people in jobs more likely to vote. Which would be an advantage for one party and not the other.

by chvid 10y ago

hueving 10y ago
Each party can now begin arguing about which has more supporters unemployed.
ZenoArrow 10y ago
Part of the reason your country (and my country) has such strong political division comes from the stereotyping of voters. When you have these stereotypes in play not only do you limit your own understanding of different groups, you also encourage them to vote based on what the prevailing attitudes of their social circles happen to be. I see this all of the time, people voting based on making a statement of solidarity with the people they consider their peers (and this applies across the whole political spectrum). If you want a more productive political debate in your country, it doesn't help to pigeonhole people before you've got the chance to know them.
- chvid 10y ago
  Inside politics this is a whole professional field. The effect of changing voting age, voter registration rules, how new parties are registered, whether voting is compulsory, how voting is combined with voting on other issues and so on can be calculated and predicted quite precisely. And you will see that all major political parties are working for the changes that will benifit themselves the most.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "predicted quite precisely" The question I'm raising is why it can be predicted. The assertion I'm making is that many people vote in accordance with the norms of their societal influences, not necessarily because they're making decisions based on the vision and competency of the people they're voting for, and by stereotyping people you're only furthering this phenomenon. To put it in other words, I do not doubt that political parties put together statistics on voters to guide their decisions in an election, however there's a difference between doing it publicly and doing it privately, and that difference can be found in how it affects the behaviour of voters. When it comes to predicting in public you should be conscious of the effects of self-fulfilling prophecies. By tying a voting decision to someone's identity within a society you hold back debates based on reason.
    - chvid 10y ago
      This stuff deals with aggregates not the person in front of you. No one claims to be able to tell what a particular person is voting based on whether they are in job or not.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        > "No one claims to be able to tell what a particular person is voting based on whether they are in job or not." No one claims to be able to be completely certain who someone will vote for, but people do claim to be able to predict who someone will vote for. What I'm saying is that making this prediction is not without consequence. In other words, the prediction and the action taken as a result of this prediction can influence the result of an election. By characterising the 'type' of people that are likely to vote a certain way, you build up social norms. These social norms then have a limiting effect on reasonable debate. In a more robust democracy there shouldn't be such a thing as 'safe' states (in the sense of states that always vote Democrat or Republican), yet those states exist. I'm saying that a large part of that is because people have become conditioned to voting a certain way by the society that surrounds them, and the way that voting along with peers is normalised. As a light-hearted example, take a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3VLqLLWxbQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3VLqLLWxbQ It's fairly tame from a political standpoint, and it's clearly done in a light-hearted way, but one of the main reasons it's safe because people vote with their peers, the artist can be fairly certain he's not singing to people who (for the most part) would vote Democrat because that not part of their identity. Statistical analysis of voters can feed into identity politics, both from the perspective of how parties advertise themselves to would-be voters, and in the case of statistical analysis that is frequently repeated in the mass media, of normalising divisions and guiding people into where they 'fit in'. I don't think these divisions help people engage in politics in a reasoned, respectful way as the moment you bring identity into politics reason and logic can go out of the window. Therefore, whilst statistical grouping may seem innocuous on the surface, it can lead to a fairly sizeable impact over time.

All things equal; doing on voting on weekends would make people in jobs more likely to vote. Which would be an advantage for one party and not the other.

by chvid 10y ago

All things equal; doing on voting on weekends would make people in jobs more likely to vote. Which would be an advantage for one party and not the other.

hueving 10y ago

Each party can now begin arguing about which has more supporters unemployed.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

Part of the reason your country (and my country) has such strong political division comes from the stereotyping of voters. When you have these stereotypes in play not only do you limit your own understanding of different groups, you also encourage them to vote based on what the prevailing attitudes of their social circles happen to be. I see this all of the time, people voting based on making a statement of solidarity with the people they consider their peers (and this applies across the whole political spectrum). If you want a more productive political debate in your country, it doesn't help to pigeonhole people before you've got the chance to know them.

chvid 10y ago
Inside politics this is a whole professional field. The effect of changing voting age, voter registration rules, how new parties are registered, whether voting is compulsory, how voting is combined with voting on other issues and so on can be calculated and predicted quite precisely. And you will see that all major political parties are working for the changes that will benifit themselves the most.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "predicted quite precisely" The question I'm raising is why it can be predicted. The assertion I'm making is that many people vote in accordance with the norms of their societal influences, not necessarily because they're making decisions based on the vision and competency of the people they're voting for, and by stereotyping people you're only furthering this phenomenon. To put it in other words, I do not doubt that political parties put together statistics on voters to guide their decisions in an election, however there's a difference between doing it publicly and doing it privately, and that difference can be found in how it affects the behaviour of voters. When it comes to predicting in public you should be conscious of the effects of self-fulfilling prophecies. By tying a voting decision to someone's identity within a society you hold back debates based on reason.
  - chvid 10y ago
    This stuff deals with aggregates not the person in front of you. No one claims to be able to tell what a particular person is voting based on whether they are in job or not.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      > "No one claims to be able to tell what a particular person is voting based on whether they are in job or not." No one claims to be able to be completely certain who someone will vote for, but people do claim to be able to predict who someone will vote for. What I'm saying is that making this prediction is not without consequence. In other words, the prediction and the action taken as a result of this prediction can influence the result of an election. By characterising the 'type' of people that are likely to vote a certain way, you build up social norms. These social norms then have a limiting effect on reasonable debate. In a more robust democracy there shouldn't be such a thing as 'safe' states (in the sense of states that always vote Democrat or Republican), yet those states exist. I'm saying that a large part of that is because people have become conditioned to voting a certain way by the society that surrounds them, and the way that voting along with peers is normalised. As a light-hearted example, take a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3VLqLLWxbQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3VLqLLWxbQ It's fairly tame from a political standpoint, and it's clearly done in a light-hearted way, but one of the main reasons it's safe because people vote with their peers, the artist can be fairly certain he's not singing to people who (for the most part) would vote Democrat because that not part of their identity. Statistical analysis of voters can feed into identity politics, both from the perspective of how parties advertise themselves to would-be voters, and in the case of statistical analysis that is frequently repeated in the mass media, of normalising divisions and guiding people into where they 'fit in'. I don't think these divisions help people engage in politics in a reasoned, respectful way as the moment you bring identity into politics reason and logic can go out of the window. Therefore, whilst statistical grouping may seem innocuous on the surface, it can lead to a fairly sizeable impact over time.