8 ms·

Well, no, actually, people aren't voting for this. Many people aren't voting at all, because they're excluded based on felony convictions, inability to meet pa

Well, no, actually, people aren't voting for this. Many people aren't voting at all, because they're excluded based on felony convictions, inability to meet paperwork requirements for voter IDs, etc. Gerrymandering is extremely effective. The electoral college isn't intentional gerrymandering, but it has the same effect as gerrymandering: two of the last three presidents lost the popular vote. And where it's intentional, it's even more effective. In North Carolina, Republicans won 77% of congressional seats with just over 50% of the popular vote in 2018. In Ohio, Republicans won 75% of congressional seats with 52% of the popular vote in 2018. In most areas, single vote per election systems prevent third parties from being viable. There's some evidence this encourages extremism as well: moderates aren't able to sufficiently differentiate themselves, causing vote splitting. And after all that, if they're still not able to win unfairly, electioneers can just go into the electronic voting machine and change the votes. And even if you manage to get the person the majority wanted to be in office into office, there's no guarantee that they'll do what they said they'd do that caused people to vote for them. I know lots of people (myself included) who view being forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine as a major betrayal by Obama.

darawk 7y ago
> Many people aren't voting at all Choosing not to vote is a vote. > because they're excluded based on felony convictions, inability to meet paperwork requirements for voter IDs, etc. Felony disenfranchisement hardly contradicts my point. And anyway, voter suppression and felony disenfranchisement are at all time lows historically, so my point stands just fine. > Gerrymandering is extremely effective. The electoral college isn't intentional gerrymandering, but it has the same effect as gerrymandering: two of the last three presidents lost the popular vote. And where it's intentional, it's even more effective. In North Carolina, Republicans won 77% of congressional seats with just over 50% of the popular vote in 2018. In Ohio, Republicans won 75% of congressional seats with 52% of the popular vote in 2018. Sure. My point isn't that our democracy is perfectly implemented. My point is that its current incarnation is its most democratic yet. Until Obama, candidates were basically selected by the fiat of elite groups. Obama, and then Trump, up-ended that system, making our democracy more democratic than it ever has been. For better or worse.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > > Many people aren't voting at all > Choosing not to vote is a vote. Ugh, seriously, you didn't even bother to copy/paste the entire sentence? This is not how an intelligent conversation happens. Please don't do this. > Sure. My point isn't that our democracy is perfectly implemented. My point is that its current incarnation is its most democratic yet. Until Obama, candidates were basically selected by the fiat of elite groups. Obama, and then Trump, up-ended that system, making our democracy more democratic than it ever has been. For better or worse. Okay. I'm not sure I agree with your point, but if that's your point, who cares? It's a point without implication: even if things really are better than they ever have been, we still shouldn't stop trying to improve things. "Better than ever before" is still not "good enough". And that's if we accept that your point is even true. I don't think that either Obama or Trump are examples of real populism based on ideals. Both are polished, effective facades intended to appeal to certain groups.
  - darawk 7y ago
    > Ugh, seriously, you didn't even bother to copy/paste the entire sentence? This is not how an intelligent conversation happens. Please don't do this. I broke the sentence apart by points, and responded to each separately. > Okay. I'm not sure I agree with your point, but if that's your point, who cares? It's a point without implication: even if things really are better than they ever have been, we still shouldn't stop trying to improve things. "Better than ever before" is still not "good enough". My point is that if you think "what we need is more democracy" you're going to be very disappointed in the results.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > I broke the sentence apart by points, and responded to each separately. No, you didn't. The sentence was one point, and your "response" to the first half of the sentence is only seems like a response if you ignore the second half of the sentence. I'm not going to dignify this silliness: you quoted me out of context, and have yet to respond to what I actually said in context. > My point is that if you think "what we need is more democracy" you're going to be very disappointed in the results. That wasn't remotely clear from your previous post, but it's pretty easy to show that you have no basis for saying that. 1. I don't buy that this is the most democratic point in US history. 2. The US certainly is not the best example of a democracy, and better examples of democracy have gotten better results.

darawk 7y ago

> Many people aren't voting at all Choosing not to vote is a vote. > because they're excluded based on felony convictions, inability to meet paperwork requirements for voter IDs, etc. Felony disenfranchisement hardly contradicts my point. And anyway, voter suppression and felony disenfranchisement are at all time lows historically, so my point stands just fine. > Gerrymandering is extremely effective. The electoral college isn't intentional gerrymandering, but it has the same effect as gerrymandering: two of the last three presidents lost the popular vote. And where it's intentional, it's even more effective. In North Carolina, Republicans won 77% of congressional seats with just over 50% of the popular vote in 2018. In Ohio, Republicans won 75% of congressional seats with 52% of the popular vote in 2018. Sure. My point isn't that our democracy is perfectly implemented. My point is that its current incarnation is its most democratic yet. Until Obama, candidates were basically selected by the fiat of elite groups. Obama, and then Trump, up-ended that system, making our democracy more democratic than it ever has been. For better or worse.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> > Many people aren't voting at all > Choosing not to vote is a vote. Ugh, seriously, you didn't even bother to copy/paste the entire sentence? This is not how an intelligent conversation happens. Please don't do this. > Sure. My point isn't that our democracy is perfectly implemented. My point is that its current incarnation is its most democratic yet. Until Obama, candidates were basically selected by the fiat of elite groups. Obama, and then Trump, up-ended that system, making our democracy more democratic than it ever has been. For better or worse. Okay. I'm not sure I agree with your point, but if that's your point, who cares? It's a point without implication: even if things really are better than they ever have been, we still shouldn't stop trying to improve things. "Better than ever before" is still not "good enough". And that's if we accept that your point is even true. I don't think that either Obama or Trump are examples of real populism based on ideals. Both are polished, effective facades intended to appeal to certain groups.
- darawk 7y ago
  > Ugh, seriously, you didn't even bother to copy/paste the entire sentence? This is not how an intelligent conversation happens. Please don't do this. I broke the sentence apart by points, and responded to each separately. > Okay. I'm not sure I agree with your point, but if that's your point, who cares? It's a point without implication: even if things really are better than they ever have been, we still shouldn't stop trying to improve things. "Better than ever before" is still not "good enough". My point is that if you think "what we need is more democracy" you're going to be very disappointed in the results.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > I broke the sentence apart by points, and responded to each separately. No, you didn't. The sentence was one point, and your "response" to the first half of the sentence is only seems like a response if you ignore the second half of the sentence. I'm not going to dignify this silliness: you quoted me out of context, and have yet to respond to what I actually said in context. > My point is that if you think "what we need is more democracy" you're going to be very disappointed in the results. That wasn't remotely clear from your previous post, but it's pretty easy to show that you have no basis for saying that. 1. I don't buy that this is the most democratic point in US history. 2. The US certainly is not the best example of a democracy, and better examples of democracy have gotten better results.