3 ms·

> 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 require

by 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
      > 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. I responded to the second part of your point right afterwards. I responded to the totality of what you said. Read it again. You may not have intended for them to be broken out as I did, which would just be to say you didn't intend to say "Many people choose not to vote" in isolation. That's fine - I still responded to the second part of what you said in conjunction with the first in the very next point. > 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. You "showing" that I have no basis for that is you saying that you don't buy it? Democracy is the manifest will of the electorate. I gave specific supporting reasons for my point here, you could try to attack those if you had an argument. > 2. The US certainly is not the best example of a democracy, and better examples of democracy have gotten better results. I didn't say that it was. But there are many examples of 'democracy' in the world, with a great many different outcomes. Democracies are only as good as the will of their constituents.
Supermancho 7y ago
> Choosing not to vote is a vote. Abstaining is not voting. I look forward to the day we have a national election holiday, when the US gets around to being serious about democracy. > our democracy more democratic than it ever has been. For better or worse. I agree wholeheartedly. The US public are upset to see changes (as they always have been), but don't seem to understand it's of the population's own making in recent presidential elections.
munk-a 7y ago
Choosing not to vote is an action - it's not a vote, and, to be honest, it's a rather stupid action if you have the freedom to choose a different action. Yea America is broken, the two party system is broken - so start voting strategically for third parties that actually represent plans to fix the system - no your candidate won't be elected but you'll both pressure existing candidates and make new candidates eligible that endorse the voting reform you want to see. I think, in this current age, we've actually got some decent mainstream contenders with solid voting reform plans and maybe, if no one who endorses your other values endorses those plans, then you should vote third party to encourage them to adopt them as well. Also, bear in mind that voting for a third party is essentially not expressing your opinion when it comes to policy (assuming there is a candidate that aligns with your value) so this advice is pretty much solely aimed at those who would choose not to vote - also don't vote for Mickey Mouse, it's possibly the least effective way to protect the system because nobody cares about those votes.

by darawk 7y ago

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
    > 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. I responded to the second part of your point right afterwards. I responded to the totality of what you said. Read it again. You may not have intended for them to be broken out as I did, which would just be to say you didn't intend to say "Many people choose not to vote" in isolation. That's fine - I still responded to the second part of what you said in conjunction with the first in the very next point. > 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. You "showing" that I have no basis for that is you saying that you don't buy it? Democracy is the manifest will of the electorate. I gave specific supporting reasons for my point here, you could try to attack those if you had an argument. > 2. The US certainly is not the best example of a democracy, and better examples of democracy have gotten better results. I didn't say that it was. But there are many examples of 'democracy' in the world, with a great many different outcomes. Democracies are only as good as the will of their constituents.

Supermancho 7y ago

> Choosing not to vote is a vote. Abstaining is not voting. I look forward to the day we have a national election holiday, when the US gets around to being serious about democracy. > our democracy more democratic than it ever has been. For better or worse. I agree wholeheartedly. The US public are upset to see changes (as they always have been), but don't seem to understand it's of the population's own making in recent presidential elections.

munk-a 7y ago

Choosing not to vote is an action - it's not a vote, and, to be honest, it's a rather stupid action if you have the freedom to choose a different action. Yea America is broken, the two party system is broken - so start voting strategically for third parties that actually represent plans to fix the system - no your candidate won't be elected but you'll both pressure existing candidates and make new candidates eligible that endorse the voting reform you want to see. I think, in this current age, we've actually got some decent mainstream contenders with solid voting reform plans and maybe, if no one who endorses your other values endorses those plans, then you should vote third party to encourage them to adopt them as well. Also, bear in mind that voting for a third party is essentially not expressing your opinion when it comes to policy (assuming there is a candidate that aligns with your value) so this advice is pretty much solely aimed at those who would choose not to vote - also don't vote for Mickey Mouse, it's possibly the least effective way to protect the system because nobody cares about those votes.