5 ms·

It's one thing to be interested in politics, and a whole different story whether you can make a tiny bit of difference with the knowledge you get from spending

It's one thing to be interested in politics, and a whole different story whether you can make a tiny bit of difference with the knowledge you get from spending time listening to all the politicians out there on a daily basis. Besides, most of the time the system is designed in a way that you have neither a say nor healthy representation of your political views in the elected government.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> the system is designed in a way that you have neither a say nor healthy representation America is the most powerful civilisation in the history of humanity. In almost every election, nonvoters could swing the outcome. On almost every issue, practically nobody reaches out to their representatives. Participation is hard. Many of us have more important matters to tend to. That’s fine. But don’t characterise participation as sour grapes.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  I think the relevant quote is something like "people get the government they deserve" or "if you want to know who is to blame you have only to look in the mirror"
  - waffletower 4y ago
    More accurate would be: "people get the government they deserve" or "if you want to know one person to blame, you can squint really really hard and try to see yourself in that mirror 1/154millionth the size of your bathroom mirror."
  - edflsafoiewq 4y ago
    Democracy sure is a wonderful magic trick. None of the power but all of the blame.
  - BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
    Both of those quotes seem glib to me. Short of rebellion or revolution, the government we get is simply the government we were born into.
- danenania 4y ago
  *Nonvoters in a select few swing states could swing the outcome. (At least in regard to presidential elections--for local elections you have a point!) Edit: for downvoters, please note that I say this not to encourage apathy, but because I would like this problem to be fixed!
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > for local elections you have a point Also for most Congressional and state elections, as well as referenda.
    - danenania 4y ago
      Right, though congressional elections are also a mixed bag due to gerrymandering.
      - brookst 4y ago
        Gerrymandering relies on low turnout. Gerrymandered districts backfire when the opposition wins, because you’ve diluted your supporters in other districts. The line between unfair success and unfair failure is very thin.
- effingwewt 4y ago
  It's not that participation is hard, it's that more and more see it as completely ineffective. Every year more of my friends and family abstain from voting. The system is broken, many choose not to play a fixed game.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > more and more see it as completely ineffective Voter participation has almost monotonically increased over our country’s history [1], and presently stands near a historic high [2]. > many choose not to play a fixed game The fix is how many believe this. Which is fine. I don’t think everyone must vote, and if someone doesn’t even understand the system, I struggle to see how their vote adds information. That doesn’t change that shockingly trivial organization and deliberateness can yield results. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_Stat... [2] https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2022:_Analysis_of_voter_turnout https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2022:_Analysis_of_...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Supermancho 4y ago
      > Voter participation has almost monotonically increased over our country’s history [1], and presently stands near a historic high [2]. This is an insidious assertion, that is more about population increase than suffrage. Participation is always measured as a % by whomever is eligible, regardless of the political characterization of eligibility. The suffrage element incidental, rather than causal. Populations have increased to historic highs, so "near historic high" participation is not interesting or relevant. As populations increase, the number of elections increase due to simple population bifurcation. eg City population grows, city splits in City and City-West and despite sharing utilities and proximity, there are now a bunch of new positions to elect for. Same thing happens when counties incorporate into formal cities due to growth. This has also added to "participation". To limit the discussion from some of these factors, we can look solely at federal elections. That first wiki link displays incorrect totals, which can be verified multiple ways. ie Other wiki citations, the second link, etc The increase of the total is not sloped upward, by % of the population. It's been roughly 50% with a variation of 10% regularly in the US, for all recorded data afaik. https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elections https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elect... Edit: Had to edit as some of the language was inappropriate and overly broad, which did not add to the conversation.
- lsiq 4y ago
  Don't you find it strange that nearly every country in the world is pursuing the same currency objective at the same time. You know the one, I just don't want to spell it out to trigger the filter. How can every supposedly independent CB pursue the exact same goal if they are not under the direction of one nexus? Elections indeed swing, but do the outcomes matter if the key national politicians are operating under duress? Food for thought. Today's story is just another day of, "Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania."
  - d883kd8 4y ago
    This is not convincing because there are a variety of currency regimes in the world today and they seem to be in healthy competition
    - lsiq 4y ago
      What's unconvincing is the vagueness of that statement. Lets' get more specific then. Explain, for example, how both the Fed and ECB implemented Basel III. Why do these two "independent" organizations adhere so closely to the policy recommendations of some unelected NGO?
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > Why do these two "independent" organizations adhere so closely to the policy recommendations of some unelected NGO? Who do you think is on the committee that writes the Basel Accords [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_Committee_on_Banking_Supervision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_Committee_on_Banking_Sup...
        lsiq 4y ago
        So you're telling me that a few stuffy bureaucrats earning a salary of few hundred thousand a year are the ones who decide what happens to the money of billions? Think again. I'll give you a big hint, both the first and second presidents of the ECB previously were part of the same small and obscure NGO concerned with the history of banking.
- colinsane 4y ago
  > On almost every issue, practically nobody reaches out to their representatives. the handful of times i’ve been impassioned enough to write or call my rep, i’ve felt ashamed for doing so. polling and voting is the only system we have deployed that lets near every individual exercise equal influence. to call my rep, and participate in this side channel that’s used by only 1/1000th the population — and far from a uniform sampling of it — is to demonstrate that i don’t value the egalitarian ideals that my nation and most of its citizens espouse: that i think my opinion actually is more important/valid than the other 99.9% of ordinary voters. i don’t know how you reconcile this. i can see how sharing “unopinionated” factual information — if such a thing can really exist — with your rep could be generally good, but calling to share my opinion seems a blatant contradiction: curious if anyone has an explanation for it that doesn’t feel so icky.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > is to demonstrate that i don’t value the egalitarian ideals that my nation and most of its citizens espouse No less than voting when not everyone votes. More pointedly, not everyone is equally knowledgeable on every issue. And not every issue can be brought to a vote.
    - colinsane 4y ago
      > No less than voting when not everyone votes. ? it absolutely is less so. roughly 1/2 of eligible citizens vote; the proportion that call their reps is 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of […]. however you chop it, it’s significantly less. i can’t but read you as saying that any system that fails to achieve 100% representation is equally flawed: that a system where only 1 person votes is “no less [egalitarian]” than a system where all-but-1 vote. you can’t honestly believe that.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > proportion that call their reps is 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of… Some places have a culture of civic service. Many do not. I’ve canvassed for New York City elections with single-digit turnout; the last primary barely scratched double digits [1]. Would you castigate those who exercised their right to vote? Of course not. More pointedly: democracy doesn’t work with disengaged citizens. This is true for pure democracies; moreso for republics. Shame for civic participation is the opposite of responsible citizenship. If there are folks who lack access, help them. It takes a perverted reading of the history of democracy, of its formation and failures, to conclude engaging one’s representatives is anything but good. [1] https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/8/24/23320921/turnout-new-york-primary-low-voting-rights?_amp=true https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/8/24/23320921/turnout-new-york-...

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> the system is designed in a way that you have neither a say nor healthy representation America is the most powerful civilisation in the history of humanity. In almost every election, nonvoters could swing the outcome. On almost every issue, practically nobody reaches out to their representatives. Participation is hard. Many of us have more important matters to tend to. That’s fine. But don’t characterise participation as sour grapes.

galangalalgol 4y ago
I think the relevant quote is something like "people get the government they deserve" or "if you want to know who is to blame you have only to look in the mirror"
- waffletower 4y ago
  More accurate would be: "people get the government they deserve" or "if you want to know one person to blame, you can squint really really hard and try to see yourself in that mirror 1/154millionth the size of your bathroom mirror."
- edflsafoiewq 4y ago
  Democracy sure is a wonderful magic trick. None of the power but all of the blame.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
  Both of those quotes seem glib to me. Short of rebellion or revolution, the government we get is simply the government we were born into.
danenania 4y ago
*Nonvoters in a select few swing states could swing the outcome. (At least in regard to presidential elections--for local elections you have a point!) Edit: for downvoters, please note that I say this not to encourage apathy, but because I would like this problem to be fixed!
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > for local elections you have a point Also for most Congressional and state elections, as well as referenda.
  - danenania 4y ago
    Right, though congressional elections are also a mixed bag due to gerrymandering.
    - brookst 4y ago
      Gerrymandering relies on low turnout. Gerrymandered districts backfire when the opposition wins, because you’ve diluted your supporters in other districts. The line between unfair success and unfair failure is very thin.
effingwewt 4y ago
It's not that participation is hard, it's that more and more see it as completely ineffective. Every year more of my friends and family abstain from voting. The system is broken, many choose not to play a fixed game.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > more and more see it as completely ineffective Voter participation has almost monotonically increased over our country’s history [1], and presently stands near a historic high [2]. > many choose not to play a fixed game The fix is how many believe this. Which is fine. I don’t think everyone must vote, and if someone doesn’t even understand the system, I struggle to see how their vote adds information. That doesn’t change that shockingly trivial organization and deliberateness can yield results. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_Stat... [2] https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2022:_Analysis_of_voter_turnout https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2022:_Analysis_of_...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    > Voter participation has almost monotonically increased over our country’s history [1], and presently stands near a historic high [2]. This is an insidious assertion, that is more about population increase than suffrage. Participation is always measured as a % by whomever is eligible, regardless of the political characterization of eligibility. The suffrage element incidental, rather than causal. Populations have increased to historic highs, so "near historic high" participation is not interesting or relevant. As populations increase, the number of elections increase due to simple population bifurcation. eg City population grows, city splits in City and City-West and despite sharing utilities and proximity, there are now a bunch of new positions to elect for. Same thing happens when counties incorporate into formal cities due to growth. This has also added to "participation". To limit the discussion from some of these factors, we can look solely at federal elections. That first wiki link displays incorrect totals, which can be verified multiple ways. ie Other wiki citations, the second link, etc The increase of the total is not sloped upward, by % of the population. It's been roughly 50% with a variation of 10% regularly in the US, for all recorded data afaik. https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elections https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elect... Edit: Had to edit as some of the language was inappropriate and overly broad, which did not add to the conversation.
lsiq 4y ago
Don't you find it strange that nearly every country in the world is pursuing the same currency objective at the same time. You know the one, I just don't want to spell it out to trigger the filter. How can every supposedly independent CB pursue the exact same goal if they are not under the direction of one nexus? Elections indeed swing, but do the outcomes matter if the key national politicians are operating under duress? Food for thought. Today's story is just another day of, "Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania."
- d883kd8 4y ago
  This is not convincing because there are a variety of currency regimes in the world today and they seem to be in healthy competition
  - lsiq 4y ago
    What's unconvincing is the vagueness of that statement. Lets' get more specific then. Explain, for example, how both the Fed and ECB implemented Basel III. Why do these two "independent" organizations adhere so closely to the policy recommendations of some unelected NGO?
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > Why do these two "independent" organizations adhere so closely to the policy recommendations of some unelected NGO? Who do you think is on the committee that writes the Basel Accords [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_Committee_on_Banking_Supervision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_Committee_on_Banking_Sup...
      - lsiq 4y ago
        So you're telling me that a few stuffy bureaucrats earning a salary of few hundred thousand a year are the ones who decide what happens to the money of billions? Think again. I'll give you a big hint, both the first and second presidents of the ECB previously were part of the same small and obscure NGO concerned with the history of banking.
colinsane 4y ago
> On almost every issue, practically nobody reaches out to their representatives. the handful of times i’ve been impassioned enough to write or call my rep, i’ve felt ashamed for doing so. polling and voting is the only system we have deployed that lets near every individual exercise equal influence. to call my rep, and participate in this side channel that’s used by only 1/1000th the population — and far from a uniform sampling of it — is to demonstrate that i don’t value the egalitarian ideals that my nation and most of its citizens espouse: that i think my opinion actually is more important/valid than the other 99.9% of ordinary voters. i don’t know how you reconcile this. i can see how sharing “unopinionated” factual information — if such a thing can really exist — with your rep could be generally good, but calling to share my opinion seems a blatant contradiction: curious if anyone has an explanation for it that doesn’t feel so icky.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > is to demonstrate that i don’t value the egalitarian ideals that my nation and most of its citizens espouse No less than voting when not everyone votes. More pointedly, not everyone is equally knowledgeable on every issue. And not every issue can be brought to a vote.
  - colinsane 4y ago
    > No less than voting when not everyone votes. ? it absolutely is less so. roughly 1/2 of eligible citizens vote; the proportion that call their reps is 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of […]. however you chop it, it’s significantly less. i can’t but read you as saying that any system that fails to achieve 100% representation is equally flawed: that a system where only 1 person votes is “no less [egalitarian]” than a system where all-but-1 vote. you can’t honestly believe that.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > proportion that call their reps is 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 of… Some places have a culture of civic service. Many do not. I’ve canvassed for New York City elections with single-digit turnout; the last primary barely scratched double digits [1]. Would you castigate those who exercised their right to vote? Of course not. More pointedly: democracy doesn’t work with disengaged citizens. This is true for pure democracies; moreso for republics. Shame for civic participation is the opposite of responsible citizenship. If there are folks who lack access, help them. It takes a perverted reading of the history of democracy, of its formation and failures, to conclude engaging one’s representatives is anything but good. [1] https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/8/24/23320921/turnout-new-york-primary-low-voting-rights?_amp=true https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/8/24/23320921/turnout-new-york-...