6 ms·

Do you find getting an ID to be a significant burden? Probably not. There exist people for whom this is a real barrier. Do you have a job that allows you to t

Do you find getting an ID to be a significant burden? Probably not. There exist people for whom this is a real barrier. Do you have a job that allows you to take a day off work if you need to? Probably. There exist people for whom this is a real barrier. Do you have a job that doesn't require you to work on weekends? Probably. There exist people for whom this is a real barrier. It's hard to ask someone to just CARE more, if caring more means they might be fired from the job that puts food on their table. I'm sorry I used your trigger-word "privilege". I do want this to be a safe space for everyone to participate, so next time I'll avoid that word. For my previous post, you can substitute the word "economically able" instead of the word "privileged", and the meaning should remain mostly the same. I actually don't mind the additional barrier that caucuses create that deter the people that don't care that much. If two people are equally able to attend a caucus, and the activation energy of the caucus filters out the one that doesn't care that much, that seems good to me. But I really very much do mind the additional barrier that caucuses create for the people that are not able to attend them due to their circumstances. If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem.

biscottigelato 6y ago
Well, nothing is black or white. It's always a trade-off. Destroy the intrinsic property of the system to trade for broader access. Is it worth it? It makes me think of the Bitcoin scaling debate. Destroy the ease of running nodes for the ease of trading at low fees. Is it worth it? In this case, I don't think the suggestion is for people to 'care' more. At the same time we also have to recognize that we can't accommodate for everyone's situation without destroying the fundamentals of the system itself. It's a balancing act. Where the line should be drawn is probably very subjective.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  > It's always a trade-off I agree with that. I personally find the trade-off to be unacceptable. However, I can totally understand people that think the trade-off is worthwhile. I disagree, but very much understand and think a debate is merited. I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists. Well of course the trade-off exists. I never said it doesn't take effort to go out and caucus. It does. Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big. So you aren't making any profound argument. What you're missing is the other side of the equation - it isn't just about the relative effort to do something, but more importantly the level of care that people have for that something. That is if people don't care about attending a political rally, they won't attend a political rally even if you remove every barrier you perceive there to be. We see it in elections all the time. For all the talk about structural barriers to voting, black turn out was a record high for Obama because black communities really cared about voting for Obama. Black turnout was not as high for Hillary, because she didn't have the same level of support from the black population. When people care about something, they will find a way to engage.
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      > Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big. I'm going to copy and paste something I wrote earlier, because this response still doesn't address my actual concern: I actually don't mind the additional barrier that caucuses create that deter the people that don't care that much. If two people are equally able to attend a caucus, and the activation energy of the caucus filters out the one that doesn't care that much, that seems good to me. But I really very much do mind the additional barrier that caucuses create for the people that are not able to attend them due to their circumstances. If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem. --- To reiterate my point: I am genuinely unconcerned even slightly about those you address in this post. My concern is still entirely unaddressed, except for being dismissed as not a problem or shifted to the alternate concern about people who can attend but choose not to.
talentedcoin 6y ago
So, OP points out that maybe a commitment of one night every few years isn’t so unreasonable, and your response is to berate them for their privilege? What alternative do you suggest?
- komali2 6y ago
  Mail in voting and thousands of in person voting booths across the state. Berate is a strong word to describe what I read imo. I think it was more a suggestion to put one's self in another's shoes. If you believe for example that a caucus is not too high a burden of voting for anyone in America because credit card debt exists, I personally guarantee to you that this is due either to a lack of experience in the struggle some Americans face, or to a lack of imagination. If you actually wanna know, it's easy - check out "Evicted" from your local library.
  - talentedcoin 6y ago
    OK, sorry, maybe I was confused -- we're talking caucuses weren't we? I definitely agree with that for voting at large, but I always thought the whole point of a caucus was the messy political "fun" of it all. (Disclaimer, I am not American.) Anyways thanks for the reply, I am familiar with that book and these arguments. I just don't understand why they should apply to a caucus, which is once every few years, and mostly for more politically-involved folks by definition already.
    - komali2 6y ago
      If it were up to me, every American would have the time and financial stability (as well as the accessibility resources necessary) to participate in a caucus. Until we can achieve that kind of safety net, though, I think it's important that ALL forms of engaging with democracy are available to ALL Americans. The political parties get away with far too much shenanigans imo.
      - macspoofing 6y ago
        >If it were up to me, every American would have the time and financial stability "Time" and "financial stability" is not an absolute measure, but is relative to your level of 'care' about the issue. I don't have 'time' to visit someone I don't care about. I make time to visit someone I do. Someone of modest means who has to work many hours a week and raise kids, won't have time (or 'financial ability') to attend a political rally if they don't really care a lot about it. They WILL make the effort if they did. If they don't care about your political cause, but you go ahead and remove all the perceived barriers, they still won't care, and they will prioritize other things they care about over your political rally or caucus. That's what you're missing here. You're under the impression that the reason why many people don't attend caucuses is that they aren't able to - that's not reality. As a counter-example, many many many people who have all the free time in the world and all the money in the world, also don't attend caucuses. Why is that?

biscottigelato 6y ago

Well, nothing is black or white. It's always a trade-off. Destroy the intrinsic property of the system to trade for broader access. Is it worth it? It makes me think of the Bitcoin scaling debate. Destroy the ease of running nodes for the ease of trading at low fees. Is it worth it? In this case, I don't think the suggestion is for people to 'care' more. At the same time we also have to recognize that we can't accommodate for everyone's situation without destroying the fundamentals of the system itself. It's a balancing act. Where the line should be drawn is probably very subjective.

ncallaway 6y ago
> It's always a trade-off I agree with that. I personally find the trade-off to be unacceptable. However, I can totally understand people that think the trade-off is worthwhile. I disagree, but very much understand and think a debate is merited. I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists. Well of course the trade-off exists. I never said it doesn't take effort to go out and caucus. It does. Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big. So you aren't making any profound argument. What you're missing is the other side of the equation - it isn't just about the relative effort to do something, but more importantly the level of care that people have for that something. That is if people don't care about attending a political rally, they won't attend a political rally even if you remove every barrier you perceive there to be. We see it in elections all the time. For all the talk about structural barriers to voting, black turn out was a record high for Obama because black communities really cared about voting for Obama. Black turnout was not as high for Hillary, because she didn't have the same level of support from the black population. When people care about something, they will find a way to engage.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    > Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big. I'm going to copy and paste something I wrote earlier, because this response still doesn't address my actual concern: I actually don't mind the additional barrier that caucuses create that deter the people that don't care that much. If two people are equally able to attend a caucus, and the activation energy of the caucus filters out the one that doesn't care that much, that seems good to me. But I really very much do mind the additional barrier that caucuses create for the people that are not able to attend them due to their circumstances. If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem. --- To reiterate my point: I am genuinely unconcerned even slightly about those you address in this post. My concern is still entirely unaddressed, except for being dismissed as not a problem or shifted to the alternate concern about people who can attend but choose not to.

talentedcoin 6y ago

So, OP points out that maybe a commitment of one night every few years isn’t so unreasonable, and your response is to berate them for their privilege? What alternative do you suggest?

komali2 6y ago
Mail in voting and thousands of in person voting booths across the state. Berate is a strong word to describe what I read imo. I think it was more a suggestion to put one's self in another's shoes. If you believe for example that a caucus is not too high a burden of voting for anyone in America because credit card debt exists, I personally guarantee to you that this is due either to a lack of experience in the struggle some Americans face, or to a lack of imagination. If you actually wanna know, it's easy - check out "Evicted" from your local library.
- talentedcoin 6y ago
  OK, sorry, maybe I was confused -- we're talking caucuses weren't we? I definitely agree with that for voting at large, but I always thought the whole point of a caucus was the messy political "fun" of it all. (Disclaimer, I am not American.) Anyways thanks for the reply, I am familiar with that book and these arguments. I just don't understand why they should apply to a caucus, which is once every few years, and mostly for more politically-involved folks by definition already.
  - komali2 6y ago
    If it were up to me, every American would have the time and financial stability (as well as the accessibility resources necessary) to participate in a caucus. Until we can achieve that kind of safety net, though, I think it's important that ALL forms of engaging with democracy are available to ALL Americans. The political parties get away with far too much shenanigans imo.
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      >If it were up to me, every American would have the time and financial stability "Time" and "financial stability" is not an absolute measure, but is relative to your level of 'care' about the issue. I don't have 'time' to visit someone I don't care about. I make time to visit someone I do. Someone of modest means who has to work many hours a week and raise kids, won't have time (or 'financial ability') to attend a political rally if they don't really care a lot about it. They WILL make the effort if they did. If they don't care about your political cause, but you go ahead and remove all the perceived barriers, they still won't care, and they will prioritize other things they care about over your political rally or caucus. That's what you're missing here. You're under the impression that the reason why many people don't attend caucuses is that they aren't able to - that's not reality. As a counter-example, many many many people who have all the free time in the world and all the money in the world, also don't attend caucuses. Why is that?