4 ms·

The problem with articles like this is that what matters is how people vote not what they say their policy preferences are.

munk-a 6y ago
But people don't have freedom to vote as they'd like. Voting in a two party system is reduced to a "which is worse" question. If you're fiscally and socially liberal but feel very strongly about preventing abortion you might end up holding your nose while voting for the R candidate.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > If you're fiscally and socially liberal but feel very strongly about preventing abortion you might end up holding your nose while voting for the R candidate. Not to get into a flamewar or anything, but if you're trying to prevent abortion then voting for the R candidate isn't a sensible choice. Hand in hand with wishing to ban abortion, they generally are hostile to the very policies (free birth control, such as IUD, on demand) that are the most effective in preventing abortion. Colorado cut teen birth rate and teen abortion rate in half simply by offering free IUDs[1]. The thing with the two party system is that the real choice for voters happens in the primaries. This is the chance to swing the party in a different direction, since in the general election people will typically hold their nose and vote a straight ticket even if they don't like all the positions their candidate holds. [1] https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/PSD_TitleX3_CFPI-Report.pdf https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/PSD_Tit...
  - _underfl0w_ 6y ago
    Unfortunately there is a non-negligible percentage of those who would follow the parent comment's suggestion due to religious affiliation. Some of those would also clutch pearls when mentioning birth control, out of prolonged exposure to FUD on the topic, i.e. "think of the children!"
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
      Or they might be billionaires and are worried that if the birth rate continues dropping they might have to modernize their facilities or pay higher wages.
      - munk-a 6y ago
        I can believe some billionaires having this opinion (since some aren't super sharp) but it's total BS. There are plenty of humans on earth - there isn't any shortage of labour out there. People over-reproducing is a strain on society. I'm not saying we should limit how many children folks can have, but there isn't any societal upside to 14 person families.
        Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
        I agree, however the options with the best evidence for success are, unpopular. A robust sex ed curriculum, free contraceptives for everyone NQA, free abortions up to delivery. Fund social services adequately. One party is dying on the hill in an attempt to prevent these rational evidence based measures. I'd rather believe that gullible religious types are tricked into hating these things because it helps the capital class maintain a large uneducated and impoverished workforce. I realize that this may be wholly wrong. On the other side of things.. If the birth rate declines too fast then entire generations will be raised to keep their ancestors alive, instead of doing other things like mining asteroids or creating new AI to better sell Facebook's new facehugger 3000 vr facemask with built in respirator.
witherk 6y ago
Great point. Measuring the divide between parties by the issue positions their voters misses the more important things like "would you rather your party try to hold onto power or admit defeat" after an election.
dragonwriter 6y ago
No, the problem with articles like this is that they make claims about differences in people's policy preferences without actually measuring policy preferences, just on a 1-100 scale how extreme they feel their own preferences and others are. Without objective touchstones for what 25, 50, and 75 mean on the scales between the extreme polar positions that are given as the end points, where people rate themselves numerically isn't likely to have any coherent relation to actual policy positions at all.

munk-a 6y ago

But people don't have freedom to vote as they'd like. Voting in a two party system is reduced to a "which is worse" question. If you're fiscally and socially liberal but feel very strongly about preventing abortion you might end up holding your nose while voting for the R candidate.

mullingitover 6y ago
> If you're fiscally and socially liberal but feel very strongly about preventing abortion you might end up holding your nose while voting for the R candidate. Not to get into a flamewar or anything, but if you're trying to prevent abortion then voting for the R candidate isn't a sensible choice. Hand in hand with wishing to ban abortion, they generally are hostile to the very policies (free birth control, such as IUD, on demand) that are the most effective in preventing abortion. Colorado cut teen birth rate and teen abortion rate in half simply by offering free IUDs[1]. The thing with the two party system is that the real choice for voters happens in the primaries. This is the chance to swing the party in a different direction, since in the general election people will typically hold their nose and vote a straight ticket even if they don't like all the positions their candidate holds. [1] https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/PSD_TitleX3_CFPI-Report.pdf https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/PSD_Tit...
- _underfl0w_ 6y ago
  Unfortunately there is a non-negligible percentage of those who would follow the parent comment's suggestion due to religious affiliation. Some of those would also clutch pearls when mentioning birth control, out of prolonged exposure to FUD on the topic, i.e. "think of the children!"
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
    Or they might be billionaires and are worried that if the birth rate continues dropping they might have to modernize their facilities or pay higher wages.
    - munk-a 6y ago
      I can believe some billionaires having this opinion (since some aren't super sharp) but it's total BS. There are plenty of humans on earth - there isn't any shortage of labour out there. People over-reproducing is a strain on society. I'm not saying we should limit how many children folks can have, but there isn't any societal upside to 14 person families.
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
        I agree, however the options with the best evidence for success are, unpopular. A robust sex ed curriculum, free contraceptives for everyone NQA, free abortions up to delivery. Fund social services adequately. One party is dying on the hill in an attempt to prevent these rational evidence based measures. I'd rather believe that gullible religious types are tricked into hating these things because it helps the capital class maintain a large uneducated and impoverished workforce. I realize that this may be wholly wrong. On the other side of things.. If the birth rate declines too fast then entire generations will be raised to keep their ancestors alive, instead of doing other things like mining asteroids or creating new AI to better sell Facebook's new facehugger 3000 vr facemask with built in respirator.

witherk 6y ago

Great point. Measuring the divide between parties by the issue positions their voters misses the more important things like "would you rather your party try to hold onto power or admit defeat" after an election.

dragonwriter 6y ago

No, the problem with articles like this is that they make claims about differences in people's policy preferences without actually measuring policy preferences, just on a 1-100 scale how extreme they feel their own preferences and others are. Without objective touchstones for what 25, 50, and 75 mean on the scales between the extreme polar positions that are given as the end points, where people rate themselves numerically isn't likely to have any coherent relation to actual policy positions at all.