4 ms·

>Mail in voting and thousands of in person voting booths across the state. I dread the dystopia when you sent your party affiliation on your phone and you neve

>Mail in voting and thousands of in person voting booths across the state. I dread the dystopia when you sent your party affiliation on your phone and you never even have to think about pesky things like engagement, and people, and politicians, and elections as your phone will be automatically be polled at election time for your vote. This is a democratic dystopia. To me, this is democracy: https://youtu.be/FRtp-ooeC3Q?t=139 https://youtu.be/FRtp-ooeC3Q?t=139 - yelling, cheering, jeering, people in a common space, interacting with their neighbours, fired up! > 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. Personally guarantee eh? I can personally guarantee you don't know what you're talking about. I noticed a tendency of a certain class of people, typically who grew up in an affluent household, who are deeply uncomfortable with making any statement that doesn't infantilize people of modest means or modest upbringing. Frequently they will also lecture others who are familiar with growing up poor, or in an immigrant ghetto in an immigrant household, as somehow ... not understanding what non-affluence looks like, perhaps because they themselves don't understand it and they lack the imagination to (as you put it). I understand what growing up as a foreign-born immigrant in working-class immigrant household looks like, and it doesn't change my conclusion. If people, regardless of income, care about caucus they will make time. In fact, they will be happy to. Sacrificing a little for something you care about is a spiritual experience.

komali2 6y ago
> If people, regardless of income, care about caucus they will make time. This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision. Spending a day at a caucus could mean more than "sacrificing a little." I do claim you're lacking imagination here - why haven't you considered the case of the single mom who is one missed shift away from missing rent - and by the way, if she misses a shift she just gets fired anyway? Oops, evicted and no income. Job hunting while homeless. The choice between "participating in democracy" and "having shelter" isn't an actual choice. Also, I disagree entirely with your premise that a caucus is what a democracy looks like. No consideration for mute or deaf constituents. No consideration for introverts. "But if they cared enough." Sure. And if people didn't do crime, there'd be no crime. The reality is those people just wouldn't be represented by a vote. We can sit on the sidelines and make pointless statements about the ethical inferiority of people that don't want to spend 8 hours screaming at eachother to get their vote registered, or, we can acknowledge reality and build our systems around it. A good democracy is a mail in ballot at home, guaranteed access to a free and open internet, with weeks of time before it needs to be dropped in a nearby mail box, so I can sit at my desk after work with tea while I thoroughly research before I vote.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision. No it's not. Don't strawman. > I do claim you're lacking imagination here - why haven't you considered the case of the single mom who is one missed shift away from missing rent - and by the way, if she misses a shift she just gets fired anyway? This is a good example of why it's so frustrating to debate this. You're engaging in creative writing and storytelling. You don't know any single mom who couldn't caucus because she was afraid to be fired. You just made her up to buttress your point. Are there working single moms at caucuses - you bet there are. Caucus are also organized and run by caring activists who are sensitive to constituent's needs - do you think they don't attempt to be as accessible as they can? Is that a major issue that affects a significant portion of would-be attendees? You don't know, you just assume it is. >Job hunting while homeless. The choice between "participating in democracy" and "having shelter" isn't an actual choice. No kidding it isn't an actual choice, because you just made it up and put it us a false choice. Homelessness is not dominated by people looking for work and unable to find any (and for some reason not having access to various social programs) and therefore being prevented from attending a caucus meeting. Chronic, long-term homelessness is almost solely a result of drug addiction and/or mental illness. >The reality is those people just wouldn't be represented by a vote. More making things up. You don't know that. You have a stereotype of working people and you're using your imagination to think of all the ways your caricatures of working people may be shut out democracy. But you don't actually know if this in fact a real problem or just something you think is a real problem. And why wouldn't they be represented well by their neighbours if some specific individual had personal commitments that prevented them from attending? I get why you're asking me to use my imagination - because you have no other connection to the people you purport to fight for. >A good democracy is a mail in ballot at home, guaranteed access to a free and open internet, with weeks of time before it needs to be dropped in a nearby mail box, so I can sit at my desk after work with tea while I thoroughly research before I vote. Says who?
  - komali2 6y ago
    > You don't know any single mom who couldn't caucus because she was afraid to be fired I actually do - my own mom, when I was growing up. I'm talking about my experience. But hey, don't believe me, here's a journalist that went ahead and got a couple families on the record that are in exactly the situation I just described: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25852784-evicted https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25852784-evicted > More making things up. You don't know that. I do know that. That's the reality we live in. Make it easier to vote from home and more people vote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/letting-people-vote-at-home-increases-voter-turnout-heres-proof/2018/01/26/d637b9d2-017a-11e8-bb03-722769454f82_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/letting-people-vote-a... The state of American family finance is far more dire than you seem to be aware: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/half-of-americans-are-just-one-paycheck-away-from-financial-disaster-2019-05-16 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/half-of-americans-are-just... > Says who? Says me, with as much earnestness as you say with your desire for a caucus. Except my method, the evidence shows, franchises more Americans. That doesn't necessarily invalidate your argument by the way, you can say you prefer a caucus even though it would disenfranchise some Americans. I don't know if that exactly describes a democracy though.

komali2 6y ago

> If people, regardless of income, care about caucus they will make time. This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision. Spending a day at a caucus could mean more than "sacrificing a little." I do claim you're lacking imagination here - why haven't you considered the case of the single mom who is one missed shift away from missing rent - and by the way, if she misses a shift she just gets fired anyway? Oops, evicted and no income. Job hunting while homeless. The choice between "participating in democracy" and "having shelter" isn't an actual choice. Also, I disagree entirely with your premise that a caucus is what a democracy looks like. No consideration for mute or deaf constituents. No consideration for introverts. "But if they cared enough." Sure. And if people didn't do crime, there'd be no crime. The reality is those people just wouldn't be represented by a vote. We can sit on the sidelines and make pointless statements about the ethical inferiority of people that don't want to spend 8 hours screaming at eachother to get their vote registered, or, we can acknowledge reality and build our systems around it. A good democracy is a mail in ballot at home, guaranteed access to a free and open internet, with weeks of time before it needs to be dropped in a nearby mail box, so I can sit at my desk after work with tea while I thoroughly research before I vote.

macspoofing 6y ago
>This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision. No it's not. Don't strawman. > I do claim you're lacking imagination here - why haven't you considered the case of the single mom who is one missed shift away from missing rent - and by the way, if she misses a shift she just gets fired anyway? This is a good example of why it's so frustrating to debate this. You're engaging in creative writing and storytelling. You don't know any single mom who couldn't caucus because she was afraid to be fired. You just made her up to buttress your point. Are there working single moms at caucuses - you bet there are. Caucus are also organized and run by caring activists who are sensitive to constituent's needs - do you think they don't attempt to be as accessible as they can? Is that a major issue that affects a significant portion of would-be attendees? You don't know, you just assume it is. >Job hunting while homeless. The choice between "participating in democracy" and "having shelter" isn't an actual choice. No kidding it isn't an actual choice, because you just made it up and put it us a false choice. Homelessness is not dominated by people looking for work and unable to find any (and for some reason not having access to various social programs) and therefore being prevented from attending a caucus meeting. Chronic, long-term homelessness is almost solely a result of drug addiction and/or mental illness. >The reality is those people just wouldn't be represented by a vote. More making things up. You don't know that. You have a stereotype of working people and you're using your imagination to think of all the ways your caricatures of working people may be shut out democracy. But you don't actually know if this in fact a real problem or just something you think is a real problem. And why wouldn't they be represented well by their neighbours if some specific individual had personal commitments that prevented them from attending? I get why you're asking me to use my imagination - because you have no other connection to the people you purport to fight for. >A good democracy is a mail in ballot at home, guaranteed access to a free and open internet, with weeks of time before it needs to be dropped in a nearby mail box, so I can sit at my desk after work with tea while I thoroughly research before I vote. Says who?
- komali2 6y ago
  > You don't know any single mom who couldn't caucus because she was afraid to be fired I actually do - my own mom, when I was growing up. I'm talking about my experience. But hey, don't believe me, here's a journalist that went ahead and got a couple families on the record that are in exactly the situation I just described: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25852784-evicted https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25852784-evicted > More making things up. You don't know that. I do know that. That's the reality we live in. Make it easier to vote from home and more people vote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/letting-people-vote-at-home-increases-voter-turnout-heres-proof/2018/01/26/d637b9d2-017a-11e8-bb03-722769454f82_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/letting-people-vote-a... The state of American family finance is far more dire than you seem to be aware: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/half-of-americans-are-just-one-paycheck-away-from-financial-disaster-2019-05-16 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/half-of-americans-are-just... > Says who? Says me, with as much earnestness as you say with your desire for a caucus. Except my method, the evidence shows, franchises more Americans. That doesn't necessarily invalidate your argument by the way, you can say you prefer a caucus even though it would disenfranchise some Americans. I don't know if that exactly describes a democracy though.