3 ms·

"Not everyone should vote. If your views are substantially outside the mainstream there is no point in voting." Voting outside the mainstream over time (for so

by rfrey 10y ago

"Not everyone should vote. If your views are substantially outside the mainstream there is no point in voting." Voting outside the mainstream over time (for some definition of "substantially outside") can normalize and legitimize viewpoints that would otherwise be regarded as fringe forever. We've seen that with the Green party here in Canada. That said, I agree (if you think this) that the fetishization of voting for the sake of voting is pretty naive.

antisthenes 10y ago
> Voting outside the mainstream over time (for some definition of "substantially outside") can normalize and legitimize viewpoints that would otherwise be regarded as fringe forever. What's the scale of the timeframe we're talking about here? Doesn't seem like the Green Party in the US has a chance of getting normalized on a scale of 2 generations (~50 yrs), based on the past history of voting. Having people vote based on the idea that at some point in the future, possibly not in their lifetime, their viewpoint may (or may not) become mainstream/legitimate is absurd. People are not that far forward thinkers.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  If we're lucky and the news media gets completely destroyed by the Internet (which process has certainly begun) whatever replaces it probably won't be as unified in reinforcing the two-party hegemony. I think that's the biggest factor in people not even considering a vote for even the milquetoast alternatives that we got this last time around. Every time the "other" candidates get a mention, it's to poke fun of them for some geographical error. ("She flew to the wrong city!" "He couldn't find Aleppo on a map; doesn't he know we'll have to bomb that city soon?")
- rfrey 10y ago
  My perception is that the Green party went from lunatic fringe to "why aren't they in the official debates" in three election cycles.

by rfrey 10y ago

antisthenes 10y ago

> Voting outside the mainstream over time (for some definition of "substantially outside") can normalize and legitimize viewpoints that would otherwise be regarded as fringe forever. What's the scale of the timeframe we're talking about here? Doesn't seem like the Green Party in the US has a chance of getting normalized on a scale of 2 generations (~50 yrs), based on the past history of voting. Having people vote based on the idea that at some point in the future, possibly not in their lifetime, their viewpoint may (or may not) become mainstream/legitimate is absurd. People are not that far forward thinkers.

jessaustin 10y ago
If we're lucky and the news media gets completely destroyed by the Internet (which process has certainly begun) whatever replaces it probably won't be as unified in reinforcing the two-party hegemony. I think that's the biggest factor in people not even considering a vote for even the milquetoast alternatives that we got this last time around. Every time the "other" candidates get a mention, it's to poke fun of them for some geographical error. ("She flew to the wrong city!" "He couldn't find Aleppo on a map; doesn't he know we'll have to bomb that city soon?")
rfrey 10y ago
My perception is that the Green party went from lunatic fringe to "why aren't they in the official debates" in three election cycles.