3 ms·

Two parties are the natural and unavoidable consequence of first-past-the-post electoral systems. Work to change that, if you like, but meanwhile, work with the

Two parties are the natural and unavoidable consequence of first-past-the-post electoral systems. Work to change that, if you like, but meanwhile, work with the system that exists to shape society as you see fit.

CuriouslyC 8y ago
The whole point is that the system that exists isn't providing me the option to shape society "as I see fit". Not voting signals the missed opportunity to politicians more clearly than voting for the slightly lesser of two evils. Writing in a protest vote for "a real democracy" might signal this a little more strongly, but my time is valuable to me.
- sagichmal 8y ago
  > Not voting signals the missed opportunity to politicians more clearly than voting for the slightly lesser of two evils. No, it doesn't. It really super duper doesn't. I mean it obviously doesn't. There is no politician in the whole of the United States who is looking at the absymal electorate percentages and saying "I bet I can get that non-voting 70% if I form a new party!" or whatever because the system itself prevents that outcome structurally. As long as we are first-past-the-post it will literally never happen. Your only option to shape society is to choose from the options presented to you. Abstaining is absolutely and completely not a protest, it's a validation of, and vote to continue, the status quo.
  - CuriouslyC 8y ago
    You don't think politicians try to analyze the variables influencing voter turnout? You don't think they are paying pollsters to find out what "must vote" issues and positions are? Any politicians that stupid don't deserve to be making decisions for me. Also, do you think I'm going to sit on the sidelines if a candidate makes reforming voting, eliminating the two party system, doing away with the electoral college, reforming fund-raising and eliminating gerrymandering their entire platform (with a reasonable plan for execution)? As someone who isn't represented by either party of a two party system, my only option to shape society is protest. Supporting a candidate that doesn't represent my views just reinforces the status quo.
    - sagichmal 8y ago
      > As someone who isn't represented by either party of a two party system Nobody is represented by either party of a two party system. They each represent opposite sides of a fractious and inelegant border between the emergent political and cultural forces of a society. Whether by design or by accident they're descriptive rather than proscriptive. Unless you are the mythical true-independent, whose views perfectly split that fractious divide, it is certain that one party is more aligned with you than the other. (To be blunt, in this grotesque age of narcissism and brutish xenophobia, all human beings with decency are categorically incompatible with one party.) If that's true, and it almost certainly is true, everything aligns for you to vote with the more-compatible party. Do that to shape the society given the state of its political machinery, and also work to whatever extent you can to change that machinery. Opting out of the first because of some purity test of perfect representation is cutting off your nose to spite your face and the faces of everyone you live with.
      - CuriouslyC 8y ago
        The platforms of the two parties are entirely malleable. You could have a very different mix of priorities and still retain the core voter base. If the things the democrats claim they want to protect are as important as they say, and the moment as dire, it obviously worth abandoning less important parts of their platform to sway independent voters. The democratic party's refusal to do that just shows arrogance and disregard for the will of the people. Instead of adapting to form a new coalition, they're just encouraging an end-of-days propaganda campaign to scare people. I'm willing to let things get worse, and encourage gridlock, in the interest of antagonizing a major political realignment. Until that time comes, my vote is for a ham sandwich, except in circumstances of monumental incompetence (read: Trump).
        sagichmal 8y ago
        > The democratic party's refusal to ... abandon less important parts of their platform ... encouraging an end-of-days propaganda ... I have no idea which political universe you're living in, it's certainly not the 2018 US electorate, this description is inaccurate to the point of incoherence.

CuriouslyC 8y ago

The whole point is that the system that exists isn't providing me the option to shape society "as I see fit". Not voting signals the missed opportunity to politicians more clearly than voting for the slightly lesser of two evils. Writing in a protest vote for "a real democracy" might signal this a little more strongly, but my time is valuable to me.

sagichmal 8y ago
> Not voting signals the missed opportunity to politicians more clearly than voting for the slightly lesser of two evils. No, it doesn't. It really super duper doesn't. I mean it obviously doesn't. There is no politician in the whole of the United States who is looking at the absymal electorate percentages and saying "I bet I can get that non-voting 70% if I form a new party!" or whatever because the system itself prevents that outcome structurally. As long as we are first-past-the-post it will literally never happen. Your only option to shape society is to choose from the options presented to you. Abstaining is absolutely and completely not a protest, it's a validation of, and vote to continue, the status quo.
- CuriouslyC 8y ago
  You don't think politicians try to analyze the variables influencing voter turnout? You don't think they are paying pollsters to find out what "must vote" issues and positions are? Any politicians that stupid don't deserve to be making decisions for me. Also, do you think I'm going to sit on the sidelines if a candidate makes reforming voting, eliminating the two party system, doing away with the electoral college, reforming fund-raising and eliminating gerrymandering their entire platform (with a reasonable plan for execution)? As someone who isn't represented by either party of a two party system, my only option to shape society is protest. Supporting a candidate that doesn't represent my views just reinforces the status quo.
  - sagichmal 8y ago
    > As someone who isn't represented by either party of a two party system Nobody is represented by either party of a two party system. They each represent opposite sides of a fractious and inelegant border between the emergent political and cultural forces of a society. Whether by design or by accident they're descriptive rather than proscriptive. Unless you are the mythical true-independent, whose views perfectly split that fractious divide, it is certain that one party is more aligned with you than the other. (To be blunt, in this grotesque age of narcissism and brutish xenophobia, all human beings with decency are categorically incompatible with one party.) If that's true, and it almost certainly is true, everything aligns for you to vote with the more-compatible party. Do that to shape the society given the state of its political machinery, and also work to whatever extent you can to change that machinery. Opting out of the first because of some purity test of perfect representation is cutting off your nose to spite your face and the faces of everyone you live with.
    - CuriouslyC 8y ago
      The platforms of the two parties are entirely malleable. You could have a very different mix of priorities and still retain the core voter base. If the things the democrats claim they want to protect are as important as they say, and the moment as dire, it obviously worth abandoning less important parts of their platform to sway independent voters. The democratic party's refusal to do that just shows arrogance and disregard for the will of the people. Instead of adapting to form a new coalition, they're just encouraging an end-of-days propaganda campaign to scare people. I'm willing to let things get worse, and encourage gridlock, in the interest of antagonizing a major political realignment. Until that time comes, my vote is for a ham sandwich, except in circumstances of monumental incompetence (read: Trump).
      - sagichmal 8y ago
        > The democratic party's refusal to ... abandon less important parts of their platform ... encouraging an end-of-days propaganda ... I have no idea which political universe you're living in, it's certainly not the 2018 US electorate, this description is inaccurate to the point of incoherence.