3 ms·

Are we to understand that 'dangerous Islamist refugees' are going to vote for liberal and progressive political parties once they arrive in the West? Or perhap

Are we to understand that 'dangerous Islamist refugees' are going to vote for liberal and progressive political parties once they arrive in the West? Or perhaps the charge is that illegal immigrants are going to be swinging elections they can't vote in?

thaumasiotes 9y ago
> Are we to understand that 'dangerous Islamist refugees' are going to vote for liberal and progressive political parties once they arrive in the West? As the political parties are currently configured, yes. Dangerous Islamist refugees will vote for them for two reasons: 1. "Liberal and progressive" parties are generally the parties of directly giving out money to "the poor", which gets them votes from the demographics receiving the money. 2. "Liberal and progressive" parties in the West are currently overtly pro-Islamic as a contrast to their hated rivals who are "Islamophobic". What people often fail to consider (in my experience) is that as the liberal and progressive parties draw more of their votes from this kind of group, their party platform will change. Here is a highly stylized thought process that I'd like to argue against, as applied to the USA: 1. Mexicans, when they do bother to vote, vote Democratic by healthy margins. 2. Therefore, more Mexicans over time means a larger vote share to the Democrats over time. 3. Therefore, more Mexicans in the US means Democrats will win more elections and more Democratic priorities will come to pass. (2), and therefore also (3), are false. The structure of the US political system is that each party gets 50% of the votes. If demographics shift, it can never happen that the parties stabilize at 60% vote share to the Democrats, 40% to the Republicans -- the party platforms will change until each party has 50% of the votes. Packing the electorate with Mexicans will tip the scales toward more wealth redistribution, a current Democratic priority. But it will tip the scales away from environmentalism, also a current Democratic priority. Environmentalism is not a priority for Mexicans in the US. All of which is to say that "dangerous Islamist refugees" will definitely vote for the parties that are currently the "liberal and progressive" parties, but those parties will become less liberal and progressive in the process.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  Great point I've never thought about that. I think if you backrest that against the republicans and democrats over the last 50 years you see a feasible trend.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jbpetersen 9y ago
  What is it about the US political system that forces things back towards a evenly split equilibrium? I don't agree with the typical "vendors on a beach" (move towards the center until you each grab the half that's closer to you) metaphor since it seems to discount the possibility of being so far away from people that they're alienated to the point of non-participation. I could see it being cyclic though between that and periods of recapturing alienated demographics.
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    I'm not sure I follow your thinking here. Someone alienated to the point of non-participation, by definition, doesn't vote. They can't be relevant to measuring vote share. The mere fact that parties are able to change their positions ensures that they will. They want to live. Policy positions form an infinite-dimensional space, unlike a conceptual one-dimensional beach; it will always be possible to divide voters in half by some combination (actually, many different combinations) of positions.
    - jbpetersen 9y ago
      To clarify I mean cases where someone who didn't vote in one election may change their mind in the next if the right candidate shows up. If you're slicing a higher-dimensional space and can only slice so far from a point you start slicing from, then the problem gets even more interesting.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

> Are we to understand that 'dangerous Islamist refugees' are going to vote for liberal and progressive political parties once they arrive in the West? As the political parties are currently configured, yes. Dangerous Islamist refugees will vote for them for two reasons: 1. "Liberal and progressive" parties are generally the parties of directly giving out money to "the poor", which gets them votes from the demographics receiving the money. 2. "Liberal and progressive" parties in the West are currently overtly pro-Islamic as a contrast to their hated rivals who are "Islamophobic". What people often fail to consider (in my experience) is that as the liberal and progressive parties draw more of their votes from this kind of group, their party platform will change. Here is a highly stylized thought process that I'd like to argue against, as applied to the USA: 1. Mexicans, when they do bother to vote, vote Democratic by healthy margins. 2. Therefore, more Mexicans over time means a larger vote share to the Democrats over time. 3. Therefore, more Mexicans in the US means Democrats will win more elections and more Democratic priorities will come to pass. (2), and therefore also (3), are false. The structure of the US political system is that each party gets 50% of the votes. If demographics shift, it can never happen that the parties stabilize at 60% vote share to the Democrats, 40% to the Republicans -- the party platforms will change until each party has 50% of the votes. Packing the electorate with Mexicans will tip the scales toward more wealth redistribution, a current Democratic priority. But it will tip the scales away from environmentalism, also a current Democratic priority. Environmentalism is not a priority for Mexicans in the US. All of which is to say that "dangerous Islamist refugees" will definitely vote for the parties that are currently the "liberal and progressive" parties, but those parties will become less liberal and progressive in the process.

creaghpatr 9y ago
Great point I've never thought about that. I think if you backrest that against the republicans and democrats over the last 50 years you see a feasible trend.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jbpetersen 9y ago
What is it about the US political system that forces things back towards a evenly split equilibrium? I don't agree with the typical "vendors on a beach" (move towards the center until you each grab the half that's closer to you) metaphor since it seems to discount the possibility of being so far away from people that they're alienated to the point of non-participation. I could see it being cyclic though between that and periods of recapturing alienated demographics.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your thinking here. Someone alienated to the point of non-participation, by definition, doesn't vote. They can't be relevant to measuring vote share. The mere fact that parties are able to change their positions ensures that they will. They want to live. Policy positions form an infinite-dimensional space, unlike a conceptual one-dimensional beach; it will always be possible to divide voters in half by some combination (actually, many different combinations) of positions.
  - jbpetersen 9y ago
    To clarify I mean cases where someone who didn't vote in one election may change their mind in the next if the right candidate shows up. If you're slicing a higher-dimensional space and can only slice so far from a point you start slicing from, then the problem gets even more interesting.