3 ms·

The candidate of the party supporting these things is likely to have gotten 3.5 million more votes than the candidate of the party opposing them. In that contex

The candidate of the party supporting these things is likely to have gotten 3.5 million more votes than the candidate of the party opposing them. In that context, what do you mean by "little support"?

chrisseaton 6y ago
> In that context, what do you mean by "little support"? Through the fact that the US doesn't have them? I mean if they were really widely supported they'd have them by now. The UK widely supports national healthcare... so it's got a national healthcare service.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  The US doesn't have the political mechanisms to necessarily enact the will of the "widely supported". Example: Hillary Clinton received more votes than Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton did not become president. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting and the resulting 2 party government.
  - baumandm 6y ago
    This is accurate, but it's not just due to gerrymandering or FPTP voting. The US government was specifically designed as a representative democracy. There's no federal ballot proposition mechanism that allows the public to vote directly on issues, so it's up to elected officials to represent their constituents (or not). It's also worth noting that voters overwhelmingly re-elect their members of Congress, 80-90% of the time[1], despite Congress having a ~20% approval rating[2]. It's hard to imagine that puts a lot of pressure on members of Congress to enact the will of the people. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-rates https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-ra... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/207579/public-approval-rating-of-the-us-congress/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/207579/public-approval-r...
- CurtHagenlocher 6y ago
  Sure; it's obvious that they don't have sufficient support to be enacted. But "little support" implies that these goals are outside the mainstream of US politics (as does the prefix "far-") and neither of these descriptions is supported by the numerical evidence. I find it very frustrating that so many people seem to not want to acknowledge that they're sharing the country with a lot of other people who don't agree with them. EDIT: To be clear, this isn't a position based on personal political beliefs. I find it equally inappropriate to describe anti-abortion as a "far-right" belief. Even though it's a minority of Americans that feel this way, it's clearly a sizable enough minority that painting it as fringe somehow instead of mainstream is not justified.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > with a lot of other people who don't agree with them Again, neither the author nor I are giving any personal opinions or moral appraisals. I think it's pretty factual to say that support for these things in the US does seem to be much more niche than it is in other countries.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      I think it’s not factual unless you think niche means something all the most populated states do except for Florida and Texas. And even then, it’s an urban/rural split, and it’s pretty clear that the urban areas, which contain most of the US’s population, support those policies. Unfortunately, political power in the US is not apportioned to individuals, so this widespread support of policies is not visible as enacted policies.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> In that context, what do you mean by "little support"? Through the fact that the US doesn't have them? I mean if they were really widely supported they'd have them by now. The UK widely supports national healthcare... so it's got a national healthcare service.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
The US doesn't have the political mechanisms to necessarily enact the will of the "widely supported". Example: Hillary Clinton received more votes than Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton did not become president. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting and the resulting 2 party government.
- baumandm 6y ago
  This is accurate, but it's not just due to gerrymandering or FPTP voting. The US government was specifically designed as a representative democracy. There's no federal ballot proposition mechanism that allows the public to vote directly on issues, so it's up to elected officials to represent their constituents (or not). It's also worth noting that voters overwhelmingly re-elect their members of Congress, 80-90% of the time[1], despite Congress having a ~20% approval rating[2]. It's hard to imagine that puts a lot of pressure on members of Congress to enact the will of the people. [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-rates https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-ra... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/207579/public-approval-rating-of-the-us-congress/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/207579/public-approval-r...
CurtHagenlocher 6y ago
Sure; it's obvious that they don't have sufficient support to be enacted. But "little support" implies that these goals are outside the mainstream of US politics (as does the prefix "far-") and neither of these descriptions is supported by the numerical evidence. I find it very frustrating that so many people seem to not want to acknowledge that they're sharing the country with a lot of other people who don't agree with them. EDIT: To be clear, this isn't a position based on personal political beliefs. I find it equally inappropriate to describe anti-abortion as a "far-right" belief. Even though it's a minority of Americans that feel this way, it's clearly a sizable enough minority that painting it as fringe somehow instead of mainstream is not justified.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > with a lot of other people who don't agree with them Again, neither the author nor I are giving any personal opinions or moral appraisals. I think it's pretty factual to say that support for these things in the US does seem to be much more niche than it is in other countries.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    I think it’s not factual unless you think niche means something all the most populated states do except for Florida and Texas. And even then, it’s an urban/rural split, and it’s pretty clear that the urban areas, which contain most of the US’s population, support those policies. Unfortunately, political power in the US is not apportioned to individuals, so this widespread support of policies is not visible as enacted policies.