4 ms·

>suddenly seem especially inept As long we we're clear that the thing being labeled as inept is a particular persuasion strategy. It was nevertheless rational

>suddenly seem especially inept As long we we're clear that the thing being labeled as inept is a particular persuasion strategy. It was nevertheless rational from the perspective of a person's political interests to go out and vote, even if they felt confronted, manipulated and taken for granted and any number of other things. I certainly felt that way by a number of political conversations I had, but tried not to substitute those feelings for the reality of competing policy agendas and their effect on the world, which were the real thing I was voting on. The tricky part of interrogation and perhaps all forms of persuasion, is connecting human nature on one end, to the need to fix problems in the outside world with some meaningful policy agenda, without losing perspective and letting one substitute for the other.

pessimizer 9y ago
> It was nevertheless rational from the perspective of a person's political interests to go out and vote, even if they felt confronted, manipulated and taken for granted and any number of other things. Unless they had no faith in either candidate; either the content of their proposed program, or their actual intention of carrying it out. I don't think that the contempt for voters inspires that faith.
- glenstein 9y ago
  I think the key in your scenario is that a person already has settled substantive beliefs that aren't tilted toward any particular candidate. As long as someone really feels like they can justify their pox-on-both-houses apathy on nuanced policy grounds, that's perfectly fine. I'm talking about something slightly but importantly different. I'm talking about someone who isn't already settled on those questions, but nevertheless feels that their sense of indignation at having their dinner interrupted by a phone call is more important than who the next supreme court justice is. There's two failures there- one in the chosen form of interaction, which has no possibility of creating a real connection to a person and doesn't seem to come from a place of caring what they think. That's real and needs to be taken seriously. But then you have the second failure: of letting this personal desire for validation of one's autonomy become the whole of one's political perspective, at the expense of any consideration of policy outcomes that will affect hundreds of millions of other people.
  - hsod 9y ago
    Thank you for these posts. I have struggled to make this point many times and have never seen it communicated so clearly and neutrally.
- Retric 9y ago
  Voting for a 3/4th party candidate is still better than staying home. Voting Libertarian / Green / whatever is not going to change the results, but it is taken into consideration as 'available' voters in a way staying at home does not.
  - dmix 9y ago
    Considering the insignificance of the vote, if the other party leader doesn't deserve my vote I don't care if they fit my ideology better than the rest, I'm not going to give them or the larger political system any validation. It's about integrity and indifference in the entire system. The 'everyone should vote' activists so often operate on the assumption that this is the system, it's the only option, and if they can just convince people of the right strategy to work the system they'll be motivated to vote. Without considering a rejection of the system itself and the options the system produced, where discussing individual strategy is a meaningless exercise. Do better next time, offer better people, and maybe I'll be motivated, or better year propose fixes to the electoral system as part of their campaign. But I've already been burned in Canada where Trudeau made promises to update the electoral system...then he completely backed out of it after being elected. Which does nothing to convince me the utility in taking an active interest. Even if they are offering things I care about, if that comes with zero integrity about following through then again the individual strategy is meaningless.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Votes are not insignificant as winners and losers consider the actual votes not just who won. (ex: When drawing district maps.) Further, even if you dislike all the options for president, congress, local election, etc there are still generally referendums where obtaining is meaningless as they are direct Y/N questions. Not voting on the other hand accomplishes nothing and convinces the system that you don't matter. PS: I don't necessarily mind you conceding all your power to other people. I simply object to flawed logic.
      - dmix 9y ago
        > Not voting on the other hand accomplishes nothing and convinces the system that you don't matter. Once again, these embedded assumptions about the 'system' and my responsibility to it, all under the pretext that it is a system which is capable of significance if only more people, or the right people, took part in it. Reminds me of the cliche definition of 'crazy', expecting different results. There's plenty of more useful ways to affect the world than that. But by all means, if you think things will be different next time... And there's a difference between active vs passive involvement. By staying home and not voting I'm not actively negatively affecting the system. My involvement is entirely passive.

pessimizer 9y ago

> It was nevertheless rational from the perspective of a person's political interests to go out and vote, even if they felt confronted, manipulated and taken for granted and any number of other things. Unless they had no faith in either candidate; either the content of their proposed program, or their actual intention of carrying it out. I don't think that the contempt for voters inspires that faith.

glenstein 9y ago
I think the key in your scenario is that a person already has settled substantive beliefs that aren't tilted toward any particular candidate. As long as someone really feels like they can justify their pox-on-both-houses apathy on nuanced policy grounds, that's perfectly fine. I'm talking about something slightly but importantly different. I'm talking about someone who isn't already settled on those questions, but nevertheless feels that their sense of indignation at having their dinner interrupted by a phone call is more important than who the next supreme court justice is. There's two failures there- one in the chosen form of interaction, which has no possibility of creating a real connection to a person and doesn't seem to come from a place of caring what they think. That's real and needs to be taken seriously. But then you have the second failure: of letting this personal desire for validation of one's autonomy become the whole of one's political perspective, at the expense of any consideration of policy outcomes that will affect hundreds of millions of other people.
- hsod 9y ago
  Thank you for these posts. I have struggled to make this point many times and have never seen it communicated so clearly and neutrally.
Retric 9y ago
Voting for a 3/4th party candidate is still better than staying home. Voting Libertarian / Green / whatever is not going to change the results, but it is taken into consideration as 'available' voters in a way staying at home does not.
- dmix 9y ago
  Considering the insignificance of the vote, if the other party leader doesn't deserve my vote I don't care if they fit my ideology better than the rest, I'm not going to give them or the larger political system any validation. It's about integrity and indifference in the entire system. The 'everyone should vote' activists so often operate on the assumption that this is the system, it's the only option, and if they can just convince people of the right strategy to work the system they'll be motivated to vote. Without considering a rejection of the system itself and the options the system produced, where discussing individual strategy is a meaningless exercise. Do better next time, offer better people, and maybe I'll be motivated, or better year propose fixes to the electoral system as part of their campaign. But I've already been burned in Canada where Trudeau made promises to update the electoral system...then he completely backed out of it after being elected. Which does nothing to convince me the utility in taking an active interest. Even if they are offering things I care about, if that comes with zero integrity about following through then again the individual strategy is meaningless.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Votes are not insignificant as winners and losers consider the actual votes not just who won. (ex: When drawing district maps.) Further, even if you dislike all the options for president, congress, local election, etc there are still generally referendums where obtaining is meaningless as they are direct Y/N questions. Not voting on the other hand accomplishes nothing and convinces the system that you don't matter. PS: I don't necessarily mind you conceding all your power to other people. I simply object to flawed logic.
    - dmix 9y ago
      > Not voting on the other hand accomplishes nothing and convinces the system that you don't matter. Once again, these embedded assumptions about the 'system' and my responsibility to it, all under the pretext that it is a system which is capable of significance if only more people, or the right people, took part in it. Reminds me of the cliche definition of 'crazy', expecting different results. There's plenty of more useful ways to affect the world than that. But by all means, if you think things will be different next time... And there's a difference between active vs passive involvement. By staying home and not voting I'm not actively negatively affecting the system. My involvement is entirely passive.