4 ms·

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. T

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.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > first assertion is incorrect (monotonic increase) Huh, someone should fix that. Do you have a good source? That said, I was observing over long timelines. Decade over decade, participation goes up. > second assertion (near a historic high) can be attributed to population increase That increases the denominator. Participation is measured as a fraction. We’re about flat for the last two decades on the tail of broad increases.
TexanFeller 4y ago
I refuse to play their fixed game by voting third party, even when the third party candidate is terrible.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > refuse to play their fixed game by voting third party Then don’t. Vote the primaries, specials, referenda and local elections held, deliberately, on a random Tuesday in May.
zmmmmm 4y ago
> many choose not to play a fixed game Just remember, there are those for whom this is an explicit strategy. When less people vote, they are advantaged, so they try to make you cynical, hoping you won't vote. If you think about it, this is actually one of the few strategies that can work for a small minority to maintain power over greater numbers against their own interest. It's hard to get you to actively vote against your own interest. So the next best thing is to convince you not to vote at all - so then they still have a chance with their smaller numbers.
brookst 4y ago
Yep. Same way most shareholders don’t vote in annual shareholders’ meetings. Management has a vested interest in maintaining the illusion of inevitability. Shareholders have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion of powerlessness. It works in both parties’ interest, in a way, but only shareholders complain.

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.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > first assertion is incorrect (monotonic increase) Huh, someone should fix that. Do you have a good source? That said, I was observing over long timelines. Decade over decade, participation goes up. > second assertion (near a historic high) can be attributed to population increase That increases the denominator. Participation is measured as a fraction. We’re about flat for the last two decades on the tail of broad increases.

TexanFeller 4y ago

I refuse to play their fixed game by voting third party, even when the third party candidate is terrible.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> refuse to play their fixed game by voting third party Then don’t. Vote the primaries, specials, referenda and local elections held, deliberately, on a random Tuesday in May.

zmmmmm 4y ago

> many choose not to play a fixed game Just remember, there are those for whom this is an explicit strategy. When less people vote, they are advantaged, so they try to make you cynical, hoping you won't vote. If you think about it, this is actually one of the few strategies that can work for a small minority to maintain power over greater numbers against their own interest. It's hard to get you to actively vote against your own interest. So the next best thing is to convince you not to vote at all - so then they still have a chance with their smaller numbers.

brookst 4y ago

Yep. Same way most shareholders don’t vote in annual shareholders’ meetings. Management has a vested interest in maintaining the illusion of inevitability. Shareholders have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion of powerlessness. It works in both parties’ interest, in a way, but only shareholders complain.