3 ms·

> That only matters if voting actually functions as the root cause of election victory, but in practice it is merely an illusion of choice. Illusion of choice

> That only matters if voting actually functions as the root cause of election victory, but in practice it is merely an illusion of choice. Illusion of choice strongly implies that the choice does not matter in reality. Yet you go on to say this: > One is obviously worse than the other, but neither are for the benefit of the American people. If X predictably scrapes me up very badly but Y mortally wounds me, can you please explain how is choosing X over Y "an illusion of choice?" Edit: let me abstract out the question to avoid digressions. If X bad but Y is worse, can you please explain how is choosing X over Y "an illusion of choice?"

philipov 8y ago
The illusion of choice is caused by vested interests having strong influence over who can be elected, in order to exercise aggregate control over the economic outcome, by using their market-maker advantage. The illusion is that voting 'correctly' leads to better economic outcomes for the public, but while it is possible to obtain individual differences, in aggregate the effect is still going to be the rich getting richer. Of course, we would prefer it if the rich don't get richer so quickly that it kills the host, but that's not the choice people think they're making. It's like trying to beat the house at gambling. Individual losses are possible, but the house wins anyway.
philipov 8y ago
Here's a direct counterexample for your abstracted question: Consider getting forked in chess. The choice between losing a rook and losing a queen is illusory, even though the outcome is not the same. The choice is illusory because the fork is actually a forcing move aiming to take the rook. The choice was prepared so that your opponent knows what you will pick, with the intent that you pick it and they gain an advantage. Our two-party system functions as such a fork, multiplied by 100 million. Whether you think the Republicans or Democrats represent the queen or the rook is where Pick-Your-Own-Propaganda becomes a more effective tool than the easy-to-spot state-sponsored propaganda used in single-party socialist regimes such as the USSR or PRC.
- jancsika 8y ago
  That's a fitting analogy for U.S. national politics in every election except the last one. Because what happened was a large enough portion of the electorate voting to sacrifice the queen because fuck chess. (And I don't mean Clinton is the queen here-- I mean a large number of voters made a series of choices in an attempt to make a travesty of the game.) In one sense of the analogy, you are correct: people who aren't filthy rich are deluded if they think their choice of presidential candidate will substantially improve their economic predicament. In a more important sense, you are wrong: Trump isn't a symbolic link pointing to the same establishment that was behind Clinton. Put another way-- this was not the year to code up a random boolean generator to pick your candidate for you. Sometimes making the correct choice between two bad options is extremely important, even if the less bad option was set as a trap for you. Now we're living through the most expensive civics lesson as to why.

philipov 8y ago

The illusion of choice is caused by vested interests having strong influence over who can be elected, in order to exercise aggregate control over the economic outcome, by using their market-maker advantage. The illusion is that voting 'correctly' leads to better economic outcomes for the public, but while it is possible to obtain individual differences, in aggregate the effect is still going to be the rich getting richer. Of course, we would prefer it if the rich don't get richer so quickly that it kills the host, but that's not the choice people think they're making. It's like trying to beat the house at gambling. Individual losses are possible, but the house wins anyway.

philipov 8y ago

Here's a direct counterexample for your abstracted question: Consider getting forked in chess. The choice between losing a rook and losing a queen is illusory, even though the outcome is not the same. The choice is illusory because the fork is actually a forcing move aiming to take the rook. The choice was prepared so that your opponent knows what you will pick, with the intent that you pick it and they gain an advantage. Our two-party system functions as such a fork, multiplied by 100 million. Whether you think the Republicans or Democrats represent the queen or the rook is where Pick-Your-Own-Propaganda becomes a more effective tool than the easy-to-spot state-sponsored propaganda used in single-party socialist regimes such as the USSR or PRC.

jancsika 8y ago
That's a fitting analogy for U.S. national politics in every election except the last one. Because what happened was a large enough portion of the electorate voting to sacrifice the queen because fuck chess. (And I don't mean Clinton is the queen here-- I mean a large number of voters made a series of choices in an attempt to make a travesty of the game.) In one sense of the analogy, you are correct: people who aren't filthy rich are deluded if they think their choice of presidential candidate will substantially improve their economic predicament. In a more important sense, you are wrong: Trump isn't a symbolic link pointing to the same establishment that was behind Clinton. Put another way-- this was not the year to code up a random boolean generator to pick your candidate for you. Sometimes making the correct choice between two bad options is extremely important, even if the less bad option was set as a trap for you. Now we're living through the most expensive civics lesson as to why.