3 ms·

It's no coincidence that the US is perennially split down the middle, 50/50 red/blue, swinging back and forth between the two. The whole idea is to keep the cou

by thunky 3y ago

It's no coincidence that the US is perennially split down the middle, 50/50 red/blue, swinging back and forth between the two. The whole idea is to keep the country divided and to motivate you to vote. You need to pick a team and stay on it. With all the "we can't let <the other team> ruin the country" rhetoric, you would think the swings back and forth would be like a wrecking ball. But no, for the most part, nothing meaningful changes. Each team gets their small window of power and starts airdropping money on their doners...ahem voters. Rinse, repeat. What else can these politicians do? If they actually tried to reform something, they might goof it and it'll cost them their career. Gotta play it safe. After all, the status quo is that everyone already thinks they're all a bunch of corrupt boobs anyway, so nothing to lose really. Just go on CNN or Fox and talk shit about the other team; tell everyone that the other team is a bunch of corrupt boobs. That's money in the bank. Let's say they actually pull one out of their butt and get some meaningful reform accomplished: well now there's one less thing they can scream about to rally you up to vote for the team the next time. So best to stick to the script. They all look the same to me.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> It's no coincidence that the US is perennially split down the middle That's true, but its not a conspiracy either. Supermajority is unstable because the faction of the supermajority party closest to the main opposition gains power to draw policy closer to its preference by joining the opposition, so the split between the main parties has a strong force driving toward rough parity. > The whole idea is to keep the country divided and to motivate you to vote. It’s literally not, demotivated voters on the other side (or, in extreme cases, tricking them into failing to vote) is a strategy central to, and incentivized by, the electoral system. > With all the "we can't let <the other team> ruin the country" rhetoric, you would think the swings back and forth would be like a wrecking ball. They usually aren’t because our system is designed with lots of veto points, and the “swings” usually don’t swing all of them.
- thunky 3y ago
  > That's true, but its not a conspiracy either I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. Everyone is just acting in their own self interest. > Supermajority is unstable It hasn't always been a 50/50 split. It's a relatively new phenomenon. > demotivated voters on the other side (or, in extreme cases, tricking them into failing to vote) is a strategy central to, and incentivized by, the electoral system. Both can be true. They want to get more votes. They want their opponent to get less votes. They use whatever tricks they have up their sleeve to accomplish both goals. I agree redistricting and other dirty games are big part of that process. But I don't think it's controversial to say that another big part of the game plan is to sow division. Have you ever witnessed any organization that is more publicly derogatory towards their collegues than congress? It's a complete shit show. > They usually aren’t because our system is designed with lots of veto points That's true, and in my opinion this makes a vote for policitian X even less important, despite all of the "the future of our country is at stake" talk we hear every single election.

by thunky 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> It's no coincidence that the US is perennially split down the middle That's true, but its not a conspiracy either. Supermajority is unstable because the faction of the supermajority party closest to the main opposition gains power to draw policy closer to its preference by joining the opposition, so the split between the main parties has a strong force driving toward rough parity. > The whole idea is to keep the country divided and to motivate you to vote. It’s literally not, demotivated voters on the other side (or, in extreme cases, tricking them into failing to vote) is a strategy central to, and incentivized by, the electoral system. > With all the "we can't let <the other team> ruin the country" rhetoric, you would think the swings back and forth would be like a wrecking ball. They usually aren’t because our system is designed with lots of veto points, and the “swings” usually don’t swing all of them.

thunky 3y ago
> That's true, but its not a conspiracy either I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. Everyone is just acting in their own self interest. > Supermajority is unstable It hasn't always been a 50/50 split. It's a relatively new phenomenon. > demotivated voters on the other side (or, in extreme cases, tricking them into failing to vote) is a strategy central to, and incentivized by, the electoral system. Both can be true. They want to get more votes. They want their opponent to get less votes. They use whatever tricks they have up their sleeve to accomplish both goals. I agree redistricting and other dirty games are big part of that process. But I don't think it's controversial to say that another big part of the game plan is to sow division. Have you ever witnessed any organization that is more publicly derogatory towards their collegues than congress? It's a complete shit show. > They usually aren’t because our system is designed with lots of veto points That's true, and in my opinion this makes a vote for policitian X even less important, despite all of the "the future of our country is at stake" talk we hear every single election.