4 ms·

Or perhaps the right wins local, state, and federal elections because a large portion of the country doesn't like the solutions the left proposes.

danjayh 9y ago
I find the typical stereotypes about conservative voters to be kind of amusing. I'm fairly young, and I have an BSCE, MSEE, and a very decent paying job doing tech work. I'm a libertarian and I vote conservative because they at least usually claim to want to reduce the size and power of the federal government. Based on what I've seen in the media about people who tend conservative, I don't exist ... that or I'm actually either a buck-toothed uneducated redneck, a white nationalist, or a geriatric nursing home resident and somebody forgot to tell me :). Also - regardless of how great their new system is, the old adage holds: "Garbage in, garbage out."
- JakeTheAndroid 9y ago
  Just devils advocate here, but could it be you're the minority of that demographic? I'm libertarian, and vote all over the map, but likely lean more liberal. I know plenty of well educated, employed conservatives. But, a bulk of voters in Trump's corner are not you. It's like going to a Free Speech rally. Some people are likely there just for speech, but if Neo-Nazis show up, and cause a ruckus, they're the face of the movement. Same goes for Antifa and taking over other peaceful protests. So, I think the disenfranchised, middle of the country, uneducated, unemployed person is simply the face of the cause. Unfortunately, some people only see things at face value.
  - schoen 9y ago
    Maybe the phenomenon you describe would be weaker in U.S. politics if there were more political parties and less incentive for people to vote major-party. As it is, it seems like a lot of political journalism consists of different attempts at tea-leaf reading about which demographics were motivated to join which coalitions how, and whether the coalitions will shift, and how we would even know. I'm sure those phenomena also occur in other countries with a broader partisan landscape, but maybe they come with a smaller dose of speculation. :-)
    - wasted_intel 9y ago
      This unfortunately doesn't work well in a "first past the post" voting system, as a more general party will typically overpower a split opposition.
      - schoen 9y ago
        That's definitely a main factor that's tended to reduce the appeal of third parties.
- protomikron 9y ago
  > [...] they at least usually claim to want to reduce the size and power of the federal government. Why do you assume that's inherently a good thing?
  - danjayh 9y ago
    Most things that the federal government wants to do these days (healthcare, education, food assistance, etc.) can be done just as effectively at the state level (and possibly at the county or city level). In general, if things are done at lower levels of government, people in a particular area get more of what they do want and less of what they don't (for example Californians could have super-high taxes and single-payer, and Texans could have no income tax and a totally unregulated healthcare market). When you start pushing lots things up to the federal level, you get a group of voters on one end of the country forcing people on the other end of the country to do things in ways that they'd rather not do them. Therefore, everyone generally walks away happier if their local governments are left to do as many things as they reasonably can, the state governments take on the next layer of somewhat 'bigger' tasks, and the federal government sticks to things that only it can do - national defense, regulation of interstate commerce, issuance of currency, international treaties, etc. Most of the 'extra' stuff that the federal government does these days is done under a twisted interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, but wasn't actually intended to be the domain of the federal government by the founders, who had recently experienced similar problems in their relationship to England and wanted to avoid them within the USA. This is why the constitution is written the way it is. EDIT: And if you're interested in learning about the constitution, I strongly recommend starting with Hillsdale College's free 'constitution minute' series ( https://constitutionminute.hillsdale.edu/home https://constitutionminute.hillsdale.edu/home ), and if you like that, trying out their free 'constitution 101' series ( https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/schedule https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/schedule )
    - wavefunction 9y ago
      Why aren't they already being done then? Don't worry, it's more of a rhetorical question than one seeking an answer.
- jpfed 9y ago
  It's kind of like how liberals are all urban poor or coastal elites.

danjayh 9y ago

I find the typical stereotypes about conservative voters to be kind of amusing. I'm fairly young, and I have an BSCE, MSEE, and a very decent paying job doing tech work. I'm a libertarian and I vote conservative because they at least usually claim to want to reduce the size and power of the federal government. Based on what I've seen in the media about people who tend conservative, I don't exist ... that or I'm actually either a buck-toothed uneducated redneck, a white nationalist, or a geriatric nursing home resident and somebody forgot to tell me :). Also - regardless of how great their new system is, the old adage holds: "Garbage in, garbage out."

JakeTheAndroid 9y ago
Just devils advocate here, but could it be you're the minority of that demographic? I'm libertarian, and vote all over the map, but likely lean more liberal. I know plenty of well educated, employed conservatives. But, a bulk of voters in Trump's corner are not you. It's like going to a Free Speech rally. Some people are likely there just for speech, but if Neo-Nazis show up, and cause a ruckus, they're the face of the movement. Same goes for Antifa and taking over other peaceful protests. So, I think the disenfranchised, middle of the country, uneducated, unemployed person is simply the face of the cause. Unfortunately, some people only see things at face value.
- schoen 9y ago
  Maybe the phenomenon you describe would be weaker in U.S. politics if there were more political parties and less incentive for people to vote major-party. As it is, it seems like a lot of political journalism consists of different attempts at tea-leaf reading about which demographics were motivated to join which coalitions how, and whether the coalitions will shift, and how we would even know. I'm sure those phenomena also occur in other countries with a broader partisan landscape, but maybe they come with a smaller dose of speculation. :-)
  - wasted_intel 9y ago
    This unfortunately doesn't work well in a "first past the post" voting system, as a more general party will typically overpower a split opposition.
    - schoen 9y ago
      That's definitely a main factor that's tended to reduce the appeal of third parties.
protomikron 9y ago
> [...] they at least usually claim to want to reduce the size and power of the federal government. Why do you assume that's inherently a good thing?
- danjayh 9y ago
  Most things that the federal government wants to do these days (healthcare, education, food assistance, etc.) can be done just as effectively at the state level (and possibly at the county or city level). In general, if things are done at lower levels of government, people in a particular area get more of what they do want and less of what they don't (for example Californians could have super-high taxes and single-payer, and Texans could have no income tax and a totally unregulated healthcare market). When you start pushing lots things up to the federal level, you get a group of voters on one end of the country forcing people on the other end of the country to do things in ways that they'd rather not do them. Therefore, everyone generally walks away happier if their local governments are left to do as many things as they reasonably can, the state governments take on the next layer of somewhat 'bigger' tasks, and the federal government sticks to things that only it can do - national defense, regulation of interstate commerce, issuance of currency, international treaties, etc. Most of the 'extra' stuff that the federal government does these days is done under a twisted interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, but wasn't actually intended to be the domain of the federal government by the founders, who had recently experienced similar problems in their relationship to England and wanted to avoid them within the USA. This is why the constitution is written the way it is. EDIT: And if you're interested in learning about the constitution, I strongly recommend starting with Hillsdale College's free 'constitution minute' series ( https://constitutionminute.hillsdale.edu/home https://constitutionminute.hillsdale.edu/home ), and if you like that, trying out their free 'constitution 101' series ( https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/schedule https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/schedule )
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    Why aren't they already being done then? Don't worry, it's more of a rhetorical question than one seeking an answer.
jpfed 9y ago
It's kind of like how liberals are all urban poor or coastal elites.