4 ms·

> so why would you let your vote hinge on that one issue? Single issue voters make policy, and this is a case where the small weight of my vote could tip a sca

> so why would you let your vote hinge on that one issue? Single issue voters make policy, and this is a case where the small weight of my vote could tip a scale and actually accomplish something. Plus, I hate our current state of extreme polarization, and I value politicians who have the independence to go against their party. If he'll do that, it's another aspect I'd like to reward.

jacquesm 8y ago
Ok, I see. So this is the local equivalent for voting for a small party in a country with many more parties in the running for a coalition. That makes some sense, but at the same time it would mean that you are also voting for a lot of stuff that is reprehensible and probably against your own interest. Because once the votes are counted your vote will not be counted as a 'single issue' vote but as a total mandate for whatever that party is up to, they'll see their compromise on an issue that probably hardly moves the needle on their end as a clever tactic to get votes like yours.
- timdavila 8y ago
  So your solution is what, not vote? Everyone in America faces this dilemma, it's the problem with our two party system.
  - aaronbrethorst 8y ago
    Get involved in grassroots politics. Support municipal or state-level candidates who have potential to be federal candidates down the road. Doorknock for candidates who you feel represent you. Tell your friends and family who you're voting for and why. Vote in primaries. Always vote in general elections.
    - Rapzid 8y ago
      I mean, that's not exactly an either or thing... For the average voter with a family and career you have: * Two parties * Candidates to choose from in those parties with slightly different platforms trying to capture appeal based on big-ticket trending issues * No one person you could possibly agree with on all things unless you are voting for a hardliner and blindly drink the party koolaid So I mean really, if your vote is all you can offer and you have no hope of getting someone from your preferred party elected, the next best thing is to try to support your preferred candidate. I mean, so there are two games going on here. The biggest lie is that politicians have convinced the public that they are in the same fight to get their party in control. Except really you have: * Politicians trying to get their party in control and stay elected * Citizens trying to get things they care about addressed, improved, whatev It's the whole "We won't vote for Hillary 'cause Democrats even though we don't like Trump" problem, but it goes both ways..
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        Vote for the one that matches your interests the best. I don't understand why you would do anything else (unless you're trying to make a symbolic statement). The two-party system is not going to go away tomorrow, and it certainly will not go away because you refused to vote.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    Yea... we really need to fix that one of these days with instant runoff voting. It's going to be hard to get done since both primary parties won't be in favor of it, maybe if we get public financing of elections it'll be easier.
- meko 8y ago
  I mean, at the end of the day, you're voting for classical liberalism either way.
- dcow 8y ago
  Republicans are reprehensible? By your logic we can never make any progress unless citizens vote for a platform perfectly aligned with their own values. That degenerates to everyone voting for themselves. IMO absolutist stances like this miss the entire point of politics which is to strike compromise in the face of disperate ideologies. Sure the two party system is broken, but the way to make progress is to focus on relevant issues one at a time instead of the entire platform.
  - alarge 8y ago
    I'm not sure I follow your logic. First off, he didn't say that Republicans are reprehensible. He said that voting for a Republican implies that you are voting for a lot of reprehensible stuff (by proxy through your Republican representative). Reprehensible doesn't mean "I don't agree with". Over the years I've had disagreements with both parties (and have voted for members of both parties). However, with the increased polarization in Congress, I don't think it is unfair to say that Republican behavior and the Republican platform has largely become reprehensible. That certainly doesn't mean all Republicans politicians have reprehensible views - just that they are too cowardly to vote against their party when they should be doing so. The OP is suggesting that he wants to use his vote to encourage a Republican to do the right thing on a very narrow issue. The parent is effectively saying this focuses on a single tree instead of the entire forest. In a two-party system you are effectively voting for the entire platform and not for a single issue, so I have no idea why you consider his critique absolutist.
    - dcow 8y ago
      I understand exactly what the parent's point is. I'm just continuing the discussion. The implication (and the sibling comments agree) is that you shouldn't vote for a party if you don't agree with everything about the platform. I'm defending the GP in this case arguing that I wish collectively we would focus more on single issues and less on broad sweeping platform stereotypes (e.g. reprehensible republican). I initially commented because I've put some thought into this recently. I even commented last week here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17028256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17028256

jacquesm 8y ago

Ok, I see. So this is the local equivalent for voting for a small party in a country with many more parties in the running for a coalition. That makes some sense, but at the same time it would mean that you are also voting for a lot of stuff that is reprehensible and probably against your own interest. Because once the votes are counted your vote will not be counted as a 'single issue' vote but as a total mandate for whatever that party is up to, they'll see their compromise on an issue that probably hardly moves the needle on their end as a clever tactic to get votes like yours.

timdavila 8y ago
So your solution is what, not vote? Everyone in America faces this dilemma, it's the problem with our two party system.
- aaronbrethorst 8y ago
  Get involved in grassroots politics. Support municipal or state-level candidates who have potential to be federal candidates down the road. Doorknock for candidates who you feel represent you. Tell your friends and family who you're voting for and why. Vote in primaries. Always vote in general elections.
  - Rapzid 8y ago
    I mean, that's not exactly an either or thing... For the average voter with a family and career you have: * Two parties * Candidates to choose from in those parties with slightly different platforms trying to capture appeal based on big-ticket trending issues * No one person you could possibly agree with on all things unless you are voting for a hardliner and blindly drink the party koolaid So I mean really, if your vote is all you can offer and you have no hope of getting someone from your preferred party elected, the next best thing is to try to support your preferred candidate. I mean, so there are two games going on here. The biggest lie is that politicians have convinced the public that they are in the same fight to get their party in control. Except really you have: * Politicians trying to get their party in control and stay elected * Citizens trying to get things they care about addressed, improved, whatev It's the whole "We won't vote for Hillary 'cause Democrats even though we don't like Trump" problem, but it goes both ways..
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Vote for the one that matches your interests the best. I don't understand why you would do anything else (unless you're trying to make a symbolic statement). The two-party system is not going to go away tomorrow, and it certainly will not go away because you refused to vote.
- munk-a 8y ago
  Yea... we really need to fix that one of these days with instant runoff voting. It's going to be hard to get done since both primary parties won't be in favor of it, maybe if we get public financing of elections it'll be easier.
meko 8y ago
I mean, at the end of the day, you're voting for classical liberalism either way.
dcow 8y ago
Republicans are reprehensible? By your logic we can never make any progress unless citizens vote for a platform perfectly aligned with their own values. That degenerates to everyone voting for themselves. IMO absolutist stances like this miss the entire point of politics which is to strike compromise in the face of disperate ideologies. Sure the two party system is broken, but the way to make progress is to focus on relevant issues one at a time instead of the entire platform.
- alarge 8y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your logic. First off, he didn't say that Republicans are reprehensible. He said that voting for a Republican implies that you are voting for a lot of reprehensible stuff (by proxy through your Republican representative). Reprehensible doesn't mean "I don't agree with". Over the years I've had disagreements with both parties (and have voted for members of both parties). However, with the increased polarization in Congress, I don't think it is unfair to say that Republican behavior and the Republican platform has largely become reprehensible. That certainly doesn't mean all Republicans politicians have reprehensible views - just that they are too cowardly to vote against their party when they should be doing so. The OP is suggesting that he wants to use his vote to encourage a Republican to do the right thing on a very narrow issue. The parent is effectively saying this focuses on a single tree instead of the entire forest. In a two-party system you are effectively voting for the entire platform and not for a single issue, so I have no idea why you consider his critique absolutist.
  - dcow 8y ago
    I understand exactly what the parent's point is. I'm just continuing the discussion. The implication (and the sibling comments agree) is that you shouldn't vote for a party if you don't agree with everything about the platform. I'm defending the GP in this case arguing that I wish collectively we would focus more on single issues and less on broad sweeping platform stereotypes (e.g. reprehensible republican). I initially commented because I've put some thought into this recently. I even commented last week here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17028256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17028256