4 ms·

I think it's ironic that your comment was downoted. The mentality of Americans is warped beyond repair. If you don't think you have a chance of winning, it's no

I think it's ironic that your comment was downoted. The mentality of Americans is warped beyond repair. If you don't think you have a chance of winning, it's not "realistic" or what-have-you, until you get to the lottery... See the sister comment about voting for HC against DT because it's all or nothing.

hindsightbias 7y ago
Well, 600-ish votes in Florida did arguably end with the entire Iraq War. Those are real stakes.
asark 7y ago
It's a structural problem with how our elections work. No sense blaming individual voters for chosing "vote with the intent to maybe (but almost certainly not) affect the outcome" versus "definitely do not affect the outcome, but maybe (but almost certainly not) send a message".
- reallydude 7y ago
  > No sense blaming individual voters You're literally restating the tactic, as if that countermands the truth. There is no change unless the behavior changes, which is at the individual level. Why not dispense with the public altogether, if the individuals don't matter? Just leave it to the political parties?
  - asark 7y ago
    > You're literally restating the tactic, as if that countermands the truth The truth is the current system stabilizes at two parties due to how the rules are written, and that most voters are de facto disenfranchised at the federal (and, largely, state as well) level for a bunch of reasons. Spending any time or energy getting worked up at someone (uselessly) voting one way to try to work within that system for change, versus someone (uselessly) ignoring (or misunderstanding) that system and voting some other way, is counterproductive. An effective use of one's time is working at the party level (by which, yes, I mean the two that get elected, not the rest) to get better candidates on the ballot, for one's own definition of better, voting in local elections and advocating for or against local candidates, and educating fellow voters on issues that matter to you. This includes working to change the way our elections work to break the two-party stability point and expand the effective franchise, if you care about those things—the means to fix that are the same as anything else.
    - magduf 7y ago
      >Spending any time or energy getting worked up at someone (uselessly) voting one way... is counterproductive. No, it's really not, because there is no alternative: the voters are the ones who have the ultimate power and responsibility here. This isn't China where the Party controls everything. >An effective use of one's time is working at the party level (by which, yes, I mean the two that get elected, not the rest) to get better candidates on the ballot People have been trying that for ages, and it doesn't work; the system itself is broken, and when they do get "better" candidates elected, those candidates don't actually make any big changes because they don't really want to. >This includes working to change the way our elections work to break the two-party stability point The only way to do this is to change the voting system altogether to one like those used in Europe. Working to get "better" candidates on the ballot isn't going to accomplish that. I've never seen any popular candidates talk about changing the voting systems.
      - asark 7y ago
        > I've never seen any popular candidates talk about changing the voting systems. Popular candidates are the ones that get elected. By definition. So yes, trying to push forward better candidates supported by a party the support of which will automatically raise their profile is the way to fix the problem. Plus, as noted, voting for the changes you want (including reforming voting & districting, if that's your thing) at levels closer to home, where non-big-two candidates or oddballs within the big two might actually win. How have we reformed elections in the past, against the wishes of entrenched, powerful groups? Replace or win over one of the big two parties (the latter is easier—the former's rarely worked) and push your candidates forward. The Democrats have a strong incentive right now to get rid of gerrymandering, for instance. There are local and state level movements to reform voting—it's mostly a state-level issue—so try to get some initiatives on the ballot. Work with that. One step at a time. Voting Green or Libertarian or whatever for President or Senator's simply pointless, good feels aside—though only barely more pointless than any other vote for a federal office, under the current system. It just doesn't matter. Feel good, or get something done? For the former, keep on voting however you like. For the latter, work to change the ballot. Initiatives/referendums and influencing candidate selection in the big two. You can try other stuff, but those are the first things you should look at if you're serious about getting things done. The basic principles are 1) the earlier you're involved in the process (e.g. influencing who's running, what's on the ballot) the more effective you're likely to be, 2) the more you're swimming downstream the better (if you can work in one of the big two, 100% you should), and 3) the smaller scale the election, the more likely you can affect the outcome (obviously).
- magduf 7y ago
  It's ultimately the voters' fault. First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) voting systems do result in this, but still, it's the voter's responsibility to demand change from their leaders, and demand that they implement a better voting system. Have they done this? No. Everyone just assumes this is how it is and refuses to look at all the European countries that have had approval voting for ages, with much better outcomes.

hindsightbias 7y ago

Well, 600-ish votes in Florida did arguably end with the entire Iraq War. Those are real stakes.

asark 7y ago

It's a structural problem with how our elections work. No sense blaming individual voters for chosing "vote with the intent to maybe (but almost certainly not) affect the outcome" versus "definitely do not affect the outcome, but maybe (but almost certainly not) send a message".

reallydude 7y ago
> No sense blaming individual voters You're literally restating the tactic, as if that countermands the truth. There is no change unless the behavior changes, which is at the individual level. Why not dispense with the public altogether, if the individuals don't matter? Just leave it to the political parties?
- asark 7y ago
  > You're literally restating the tactic, as if that countermands the truth The truth is the current system stabilizes at two parties due to how the rules are written, and that most voters are de facto disenfranchised at the federal (and, largely, state as well) level for a bunch of reasons. Spending any time or energy getting worked up at someone (uselessly) voting one way to try to work within that system for change, versus someone (uselessly) ignoring (or misunderstanding) that system and voting some other way, is counterproductive. An effective use of one's time is working at the party level (by which, yes, I mean the two that get elected, not the rest) to get better candidates on the ballot, for one's own definition of better, voting in local elections and advocating for or against local candidates, and educating fellow voters on issues that matter to you. This includes working to change the way our elections work to break the two-party stability point and expand the effective franchise, if you care about those things—the means to fix that are the same as anything else.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >Spending any time or energy getting worked up at someone (uselessly) voting one way... is counterproductive. No, it's really not, because there is no alternative: the voters are the ones who have the ultimate power and responsibility here. This isn't China where the Party controls everything. >An effective use of one's time is working at the party level (by which, yes, I mean the two that get elected, not the rest) to get better candidates on the ballot People have been trying that for ages, and it doesn't work; the system itself is broken, and when they do get "better" candidates elected, those candidates don't actually make any big changes because they don't really want to. >This includes working to change the way our elections work to break the two-party stability point The only way to do this is to change the voting system altogether to one like those used in Europe. Working to get "better" candidates on the ballot isn't going to accomplish that. I've never seen any popular candidates talk about changing the voting systems.
    - asark 7y ago
      > I've never seen any popular candidates talk about changing the voting systems. Popular candidates are the ones that get elected. By definition. So yes, trying to push forward better candidates supported by a party the support of which will automatically raise their profile is the way to fix the problem. Plus, as noted, voting for the changes you want (including reforming voting & districting, if that's your thing) at levels closer to home, where non-big-two candidates or oddballs within the big two might actually win. How have we reformed elections in the past, against the wishes of entrenched, powerful groups? Replace or win over one of the big two parties (the latter is easier—the former's rarely worked) and push your candidates forward. The Democrats have a strong incentive right now to get rid of gerrymandering, for instance. There are local and state level movements to reform voting—it's mostly a state-level issue—so try to get some initiatives on the ballot. Work with that. One step at a time. Voting Green or Libertarian or whatever for President or Senator's simply pointless, good feels aside—though only barely more pointless than any other vote for a federal office, under the current system. It just doesn't matter. Feel good, or get something done? For the former, keep on voting however you like. For the latter, work to change the ballot. Initiatives/referendums and influencing candidate selection in the big two. You can try other stuff, but those are the first things you should look at if you're serious about getting things done. The basic principles are 1) the earlier you're involved in the process (e.g. influencing who's running, what's on the ballot) the more effective you're likely to be, 2) the more you're swimming downstream the better (if you can work in one of the big two, 100% you should), and 3) the smaller scale the election, the more likely you can affect the outcome (obviously).
magduf 7y ago
It's ultimately the voters' fault. First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) voting systems do result in this, but still, it's the voter's responsibility to demand change from their leaders, and demand that they implement a better voting system. Have they done this? No. Everyone just assumes this is how it is and refuses to look at all the European countries that have had approval voting for ages, with much better outcomes.