3 ms·
The problem with your position is that the politicians still win if under 40 doesn’t vote, but people under 40 lose. People under 40 hurt themselves, not politi
by landryraccoon 8y ago
The problem with your position is that the politicians still win if under 40 doesn’t vote, but people under 40 lose. People under 40 hurt themselves, not politicians, by not voting.
People in office already won office. Why would they be motivated to care to win people who won’t vote anyway? They clearly can get elected without them.
- IIAOPSW 8y ago>Why would they be motivated to care to win people who won’t vote anyway? I'm saying the under 40s would vote if there was someone worth voting for. Doesn't vote != won't vote. Its a volcano waiting to erupt.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago> Doesn't vote != won't vote. It actually does mean that most of the time. The most reliable predictor of whether or not someone will vote is whether or not they voted in past elections.
- IIAOPSW 8y agoBut this logic is so circular. 1. build a policy set around people who voted last time. 2. only people who voted last time end up voting this time. 3. goto 1
- landryraccoon 8y ago> Its a volcano waiting to erupt. It can't really wait that long, because the under 40s will be over 40 pretty soon, and then there will be a whole brand new set of young people that have never known politics. People act like "under 40" is some kind of static group. It's not, it's a totally different set of people every 20 years.